Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical variables: Which is the best combination to predict reclassification in active surveillance patients?

Marco Roscigno, Armando Stabile, Giovanni Lughezzani, Pietro Pepe, Lucio Dell'Atti, Angelo Naselli, Richard Naspro, Maria Nicolai, Giovanni La Croce, Aljoulani Muhannad, Giovanna Perugini, Giorgio Guazzoni, Francesco Montorsi, Luca Balzarini, Sandro Sironi, Luigi F. Da Pozzo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Introduction & objectives: We tested the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in disease reclassification and whether the combination of mpMRI and clinicopathological variables could represent the most accurate approach to predict the risk of reclassification during active surveillance. Materials & methods: Three-hundred eighty-nine patients (pts) underwent mpMRI and subsequent confirmatory or follow-up biopsy according to the Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) protocol. Pts with negative (−) mpMRI underwent systematic random biopsy. Pts with positive (+) mpMRI [Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2 (PI-RADS-V2) score ≥3] underwent targeted + systematic random biopsies. Multivariate analyses were used to create three models predicting the probability of reclassification [International Society of Urological Pathology ≥ Grade Group 2 (GG2)]: a basic model including only clinical variables (age, prostate-specific antigen density, and number of positive cores at baseline), an Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) model including only the PI-RADS score, and a full model including both the previous ones. The predictive accuracy (PA) of each model was quantified using the area under the curve. Results: mpMRI negative (−) was recorded in 127 (32.6%) pts; mpMRI positive (+) was recorded in 262 pts: 72 (18.5%) had PI-RADS 3, 150 (38.6%) PI-RADS 4, and 40 (10.3%) PI-RADS 5 lesions. At a median follow-up of 12 months, 125 pts (32%) were reclassified to GG2 prostate cancer. The rate of reclassification to GG2 prostate cancer was 17%, 35%, 38%, and 52% for mpMRI (−), PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5, respectively (P < 0.001). The PA was 69% and 64% in the basic and MRI models, respectively. The full model had the best PA of 74%: older age (P = 0.023; Odds ratio (OR) = 1.040), prostate-specific antigen density (P = 0.037; OR = 1.324), number of positive cores at baseline (P = 0.001; OR = 1.441), and PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 (overall P = 0.001; OR = 2.458, 3.007, and 3.898, respectively) were independent predictors of reclassification. Conclusions: Disease reclassification increased according to the PI-RADS score increase, at confirmatory or follow-up biopsy. However, a no-negligible rate of reclassification was found also in cases of mpMRI (−). The combination of mpMRI and clinicopathological variables still represents the most accurate approach to pts on active surveillance.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)167-172
Number of pages6
JournalProstate International
Volume8
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2020

Keywords

  • Active surveillance
  • Magnetic resonance imaging
  • MRI-TRUS fusion
  • Prostate biopsy
  • Prostate cancer

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical variables: Which is the best combination to predict reclassification in active surveillance patients?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this