Title: Role of Multiparametric MRI Prostate as A Screening Tool for Cancer Detection
Authors: Dr Sumod Mathew Koshy MD, FRCR, Dr Anil Prahladan DNB, EDiR, Dr Kalirajan Kalidos MD, Dr Krishnankutty Nair Ramachandran MD
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v5i2.151
Abstract
Diagnostic screening for prostate cancer includes digital rectal examination and serum PSA. However several studies have shown that screening using serum PSA and digital rectal examination, did not significantly decrease prostate cancer-specific mortality. The advent of MR in prostate imaging has changes this and the ESUR published prostate MR guidelines in 2012 and also the PIRADS reporting system. Our study aims to assess the ability of mp-MRI to serve as a screening tool for detection of prostate cancer, to evaluate the ESUR PIRADS scoring system for prostate cancer detection using multiparametric MRI, to find a threshold PI-RADS sum (PIRADS-S) score for detection of prostate cancer and to evaluate the usefulness of mp-MRI in patients with serum PSA of ≤10 ng/mL in diagnosing prostate cancer. From the 54 subjects included, a total of 274 sectors were taken for analysis. All patients underwent mpMRI which included T2,DWI and dynamic contrast enhanced imaging. Using ESUR guidelines individual PI-RADS scores (T2WI, DWI and DCEI) were assigned for all sectors of prostate, following which PI-RADS sum (PIRADS-S = T2WI+DWI+DCEI) score was calculated for each sector. TRUS guided modified sextant biopsy of prostate was done for all patients and correlated with imaging. Statistical analysis was done using independent samples t test and ROC analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios were calculated at various cut-off levels. Optimal cut-off point was calculated by using Youden’s statistics. From this study, ESUR PIRADS scoring system showed good diagnostic performance for detection of prostate cancer by using mpMRI and DWI showed the best diagnostic performance. The ROC analysis of PIRADS-S score revealed area AUC of 0.933 with p value of < 0.001. The reported AUC of PIRADS-S score in detecting carcinoma prostate was 0.768 to 0.93. The diagnostic performance of mpMRI was analysed in a group of subjects with serum PSA of ≤ 10 ng/mL. mpMRI showed high negative predictive value which indicates the ability of the test to predict the absence of disease with high confidence, thereby helping to avoid a prostate biopsy.
References
1. International Agency for Research on Cancer.GLOBOCAN 2012. Available at: http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_cancer.aspx.
2. Gamber S. Screening for prostate cancer. International Urology and Nephrology 2001;33:249–57.
3. Fritz H. Schroder, Paul vander Maas, Petra Beemsterboer, Arto Boeken Kruger, Rob-ert Hoedemaeker, John Rietbergen, et al. Evaluation of the Digital Rectal Exami-nation as a Screening Test for Prostate Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90 (23):1817-1823.
4. AF Nash and I Melezinek. The role of prostate specific antigen measurement in the detection and management of prostate cancer. Endocrine-Related Cancer. 2000;7:37–51.
5. Stamey TA, Freiha FS, McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Whittemore AS, Schmid HP. Localized prostate cancer: relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer 1993;71(3 suppl):933–938.
6. Schroder FH, van DI, De Koning HJ, et al. Prostate cancer detection at low prostate specific antigen. JUrol 2000;163:806–812.
7. Catalona WJ, Southwick PC, Slawin KM, Partin AW, Brawer MK, Flanigan RC, et al. Comparison of percent free PSA, PSA density, and age-specific PSA cutoffs for prostate cancer detection and staging. Urology. 2000;56(2):255–260.
8. Ilic D, O’Connor D, Green S, Wilt TJ. Screening for prostate cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD004720. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004720.pub2.
9. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, Bare-ntsz JO, Carey B et al (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of pros-tate cancer: recommendations from a Eur-opean consensus meeting. EurUrol 59:477-494.
10. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. EurRadiol 2012;22:746–57.
11. Roethke MC, Kuru TH, Schultze S, Tichy D, Kopp-Schneider A, Fenchel M, et al. Evaluation of the ESUR PI-RADS scoring system for multiparametric MRI of the prostate with targeted MR/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy at 3.0 Tesla. EurRadiol 2014;24(2):344-352.
12. Alexander DJ, Andreas M, Tobias F, Ergin K, Alexander H, Carsten S et al. Evaluation of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System for the Detection of Prostate Cancer by the Results of Targeted Biopsy of the Prostate. Invest Radiol 2014;49(6):411-420.
13. Schimmöller L, Quentin M, Arsov C, Hiester A, Buchbender C, Rabenalt R, et al. MR-sequences for prostate cancer diagnostics: validation based on the PI-RADS scoring system and targeted MRguided in-bore biopsy. EurRadiol 2014;24(10):2582-2589.