Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging localizes established extracapsular extension of prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE To define the accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) for identifying focal and established extracapsular extension (ECE) in various zones of the prostate. METHODS Between 2010 and 2013, 342 patients underwent MP-MRI of the prostate (3T, no endorectal coil with axial perfusion and diffusion images). The findings of the images were reported as negative, suspicious, or positive for ECE by a single expert radiologist. Radical prostatectomy specimens were reviewed to confirm the size and the location of ECE and further defined as focal or established ECE. Established ECE included extension that was multifocal or involving more than 5 glands. The accuracy of MRI in localizing focal and established ECE to each zone of the prostate was determined. Regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of ECE. RESULTS We identified 112 patients who underwent prostate MP-MRI and radical prostatectomy. MRI findings considered suspicious or definite for ECE accurately predicted pathologic ECE (P<0.001). MP-MRI identified established ECE but not focal ECE. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of MP-MRI for established ECE were 70.7%, 90.6%, 57.1%, and 95.1%, respectively. MRI identified ECE to the left vs. right side as well as each zone of the prostate; however, sensitivity was lowest at the apex. On multivariate analysis, MRI was a significant predictor of ECE that was independent of prostate-specific antigen level, Gleason score, and clinical stage. CONCLUSION MP-MRI is useful for identifying established but not focal ECE in all zones of the prostate. MRI was a significant independent predictor of established ECE and may be a useful adjunct in staging prostate cancer.

[1]  P. P. Iu,et al.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines. , 2013, European radiology.

[2]  L. Kiemeney,et al.  The predictive value of endorectal 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for extraprostatic extension in patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[3]  Brett Delahunt,et al.  [International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens]. , 2013, Annales de pathologie.

[4]  C. Claussen,et al.  Accuracy of preoperative endorectal MRI in predicting extracapsular extension and influence on neurovascular bundle sparing in radical prostatectomy , 2013, World Journal of Urology.

[5]  M. Cooperberg,et al.  Time trends in clinical risk stratification for prostate cancer: implications for outcomes (data from CaPSURE). , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[6]  Rodolfo Montironi,et al.  International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 3: extraprostatic extension, lymphovascular invasion and locally advanced disease , 2011, Modern Pathology.

[7]  P. Walsh,et al.  Influence of capsular penetration on progression following radical prostatectomy: a study of 196 cases with long-term followup. , 1993, The Journal of urology.

[8]  S. Boorjian,et al.  The impact of clinical stage on prostate cancer survival following radical prostatectomy. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[9]  J. Fütterer,et al.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012 , 2012, European Radiology.

[10]  A. Partin,et al.  Influence of wide excision of the neurovascular bundle(s) on prognosis in men with clinically localized prostate cancer with established capsular penetration. , 1993, The Journal of urology.

[11]  A W Partin,et al.  Era specific biochemical recurrence-free survival following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. , 2001, The Journal of urology.

[12]  L. Reis,et al.  Influence of focal and diffuse extraprostatic extension and positive surgical margins on biochemical progression following radical prostatectomy. , 2012, International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology.

[13]  J. Meuwly,et al.  Can 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging accurately detect prostate cancer extracapsular extension? , 2013, Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada.

[14]  S. Boorjian,et al.  The presence of extracapsular extension is associated with an increased risk of death from prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy for patients with seminal vesicle invasion and negative lymph nodes. , 2014, Urologic oncology.

[15]  Lars Egevad,et al.  A contemporary update on pathology reporting for prostate cancer: biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. , 2012, European urology.

[16]  Liang Cheng,et al.  International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins , 2011, Modern Pathology.

[17]  B. Trock,et al.  An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011 , 2013, BJU international.

[18]  B. Trock,et al.  Erratum: An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011 (BJU International 111 (22-29)) , 2013 .

[19]  Choung-Soo Kim,et al.  Preoperative Factors Predictive of Posterolateral Extracapsular Extension After Radical Prostatectomy , 2013, Korean journal of urology.

[20]  H. Lepor,et al.  Side-specific factors associated with extracapsular extension and seminal vesicular invasion in men undergoing open radical retropubic prostatectomy , 2009, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases.