IS UPGRADE IN GLEASON SCORE AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY PREDICTABLE WITH PREOPERATIVE MULTIPARAMETRIC PROSTATE MRI?: COMPARISON OF ADC, K-TRANS, TUMOR SIZE AND PI-RADS SCORE

Year 2022, Volume: 5 Issue: 3, 786 - 804, 26.12.2022

Merve Horoz , Kürşad Dönmez , Mehmet Coskun , Cesur Gümüş , Yiğit Akın , İrfan Öcal , Orhan Oyar

https://doi.org/10.52538/iduhes.1218619

Abstract

Aim: In this study, the relationship between MRI parameters and upgrade in Gleason score after radical prostatectomy was investigated.
Materials and Methods: Between November 2017 and July 2020, 112 patients who underwent multiparametric MRI with suspected prostate cancer, TRUS systematic and cognitive fusion biopsy and subsequent radical prostatectomy were involved this study. The patients were evaluated in two groups as those with and without the Gleason score upgrade after surgery. These two groups was compared in terms of ADC, k-trans, tumor size and PI-RADS score. Radiological evaluation was consensus using PI-RADS version 2.1 by two radiologists who lacked clinical knowledge. ADC and k-trans were measured in the MR workstation. ISUP scoring system was used in pathological evaluation.
Results: Upgrade in Gleason score was found in 51/112 of the cases. Only 2/51 cases were PI-RADS score 1. Upgrade rate of Gleason score were 15,6% for PI-RADS score <4; and 84,3% for score ≥4. The most frequent upgrade was from ISUP 1 to ISUP 2. There was no significant difference in PSA, PSAd tumor size, k-trans and ADC in comparing between two groups. Upgrade was significantly higher in cases with PI-RADS score ≥4 and the transitional zone involvement on MRI (p<0.05).
Conclusion: mpMRI is an effective method of predicting upgrade in Gleason score after radical prostatectomy. PI-RADS score ≥4 or transitional zone involvement has an independent predictive value.

Keywords

Multiparametric MRI, prostate cancer, prostate biopsy, Gleason, PI-RADS

IS UPGRADE IN GLEASON SCORE AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY PREDICTABLE WITH PREOPERATIVE MULTIPARAMETRIC PROSTATE MRI?: COMPARISON OF ADC, K-TRANS, TUMOR SIZE AND PI-RADS SCORE

Abstract

Giriş ve Amaç: Bu çalışmada, MRG parametreleri ile radikal prostatektomi sonrası Gleason skor artışı arasındaki ilişki araştırılmıştır.
Yöntem: Kasım 2017–Temmuz 2020 tarihleri arasında prostat kanseri şüphesi ile multiparametrik MRG yapılan olgulardan, TRUS eşliğinde sistematik ve kognitif füzyon biyopsi ve sonrasında radikal prostatektomi yapılan 112 çalışma kapsamına alındı. Hastalar, cerrahi sonrası Gleason skor artış olanlar ve olmayanlar şeklinde iki grupta incelendi. Bu iki grup; ADC, k-trans, tümör boyutu ve PI-RADS skoru açısından karşılaştırıldı. Radyolojik değerlendirme, klinik bilgiden yoksun iki radyolog tarafından PI-RADS versiyon 2.1 kullanılarak konsensüs ile yapıldı. ADC ve k-trans değerleri MR iş istasyonunda ölçülüp kaydedildi. Patolojik değerlendirmede ISUP skorlama sistemi kullanıldı.
Bulgular: Çalışmayı oluşturan 112 olgunun 51’inde RP sonrası Gleason skor artışı saptandı. Bu olguların yalnızca 2’si PI-RADS1 idi. Gleason skor artış oranı PI-RADS skor < 4 için %15,6; skor ≥4 için ise %84,3 olarak bulundu. En sık skor artışı ISUP 1’den, ISUP 2’ye görüldü. Skor artışı görülen ve görülmeyen grubun karşılaştırılmasında, PSA, PSAd tümör boyutu, k-trans ve ADC değerleri açısından anlamlı fark görülmedi. PI-RADS skoru ≥4 olan olgularda veya mpMRG’de transizyonel zon tutulumunda Gleason skor artışı anlamlı derecede yüksekti (p<0,05).
Sonuç: mpMRG, radikal prostatektomi sonrası Gleason skor artışını öngörmede etkin bir yöntemdir. Bu amaçla PI-RADS skoru ≥ 4 veya transizyonel zon tutulumu bağımsız bir öngörü değerine sahiptir.

Keywords

Multiparametrik MRG, PI-RADS, Gleason, prostat kanseri, prostat biyopsi

References

• Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017 Feb 25;389(10071):815–22.
• Alberto Vargas H, Akin O, Shukla-Dave A, Zhang J, Zakian KL, Zheng J, et al. Performance characteristics of Mr imaging in the evaluation of clinically low-risk Prostate cancer: A Prospective Study 1. Radiol n Radiol. 2012;265(2).
• Alqahtani S, Wei C, Zhang Y, Szewczyk-Bieda M, Wilson J, Huang Z, et al. Prediction of prostate cancer Gleason score upgrading from biopsy to radical prostatectomy using pre-biopsy multiparametric MRI PIRADS scoring system. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):1–9.
• Boorjian SA, Karnes RJ, Crispen PL, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Sebo TJ, et al. The Impact of Discordance Between Biopsy and Pathological Gleason Scores on Survival After Radical Prostatectomy. J Urol. 2009 Jan;181(1):95–104.
• Cohen MS, Hanley RS, Kurteva T, Ruthazer R, Silverman ML, Sorcini A, et al. Comparing the Gleason Prostate Biopsy and Gleason Prostatectomy Grading System: The Lahey Clinic Medical Center Experience and an International Meta-Analysis. Eur Urol. 2008;54(2):371–81.
• Corcoran NM, Casey RG, Hong MKH, Pedersen J, Connolly S, Peters J, et al. The ability of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density to predict an upgrade in Gleason score between initial prostate biopsy and prostatectomy diminishes with increasing tumour grade due to reduced PSA secretion per unit tumour volume. BJU Int. 2012;110(1):36–42.
• D’Amico A V., Whittington R, Bruce Malkowicz S, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Am Med Assoc. 1998;280(11):969–74.
• deSouza NM, Riches SF, VanAs NJ, Morgan VA, Ashley SA, Fisher C, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: a potential non-invasive marker of tumour aggressiveness in localized prostate cancer. Clin Radiol [Internet]. 2008 Jul [cited 2020 Nov 17];63(7):774–82. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18555035/
• Eichelberger LE, Koch MO, Eble JN, Ulbright TM, Juliar BE, Cheng L. Maximum tumor diameter is an independent predictor of prostate-specific antigen recurrence in prostate cancer. Mod Pathol. 2005;18(7):886–90.
• Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, Nelson JB, Egevad L, Magi-Galluzzi C, et al. A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score. Eur Urol. 2016 Mar 1;69(3):428–35. Epstein JI. An Update of the Gleason Grading System. J Urol. 2010 Feb;183(2):433–40.
• Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV. High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1990;43(6):543–549.
• Girometti R, Giannarini G, Greco F, Isola M, Cereser L, Como G, et al. Interreader agreement of PI-RADS v. 2 in assessing prostate cancer with multiparametric MRI: A study using whole-mount histology as the standard of reference. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019 Feb 1;49(2):546–55.
• Gofrit ON, Zorn KC, Taxy JB, Lin S, Zagaja GP, Steinberg GD, et al. Predicting the Risk of Patients With Biopsy Gleason Score 6 to Harbor a Higher Grade Cancer. J Urol. 2007 Nov 1;178(5):1925–8.
• Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Van Der Kwast T, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent - Update 2013. Eur Urol. 2014;65(1):124–37.
• Hong SK, Han BK, Lee ST, Kim SS, Min KE, Jeong SJ, et al. Prediction of Gleason score upgrading in low-risk prostate cancers diagnosed via multi (≥12)-core prostate biopsy. World J Urol. 2009 Nov 20;27(2):271–6.
• Hö Tker Id AM, Blü Thgen Id C, Rupp NJ, Schneider Id AF, Eberli D, Donati OF. Comparison of the PI-RADS 2.1 scoring system to PI-RADS 2.0: Impact on diagnostic accuracy and inter-reader agreement. 2020;
• Itatani R, Namimoto T, Atsuji S, Katahira K, Morishita S, Kitani K, et al. Negative predictive value of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: outcome of 5-year follow-up in men with negative findings on initial MRI studies. Eur J Radiol. 2014 Oct 1;83(10):1740–5.
• Lantz CA, Nebenzahl E. Behavior and interpretation of the kappa statistic: resolution of the two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1996;49(4):431–434.
• Low RN, Fuller DB, Muradyan N. Dynamic gadolinium-enhanced perfusion MRI of prostate cancer: Assessment of response to hypofractionated robotic stereotactic body radiation therapy. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(4):907–15.
• Mazaheri Y, Hricak H, Fine SW, Akin O, Shukla-Dave A, Ishill NM, et al. Prostate tumor volume measurement with combined T2-weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted MR: Correlation with pathologic tumor volume. Radiology. 2009;252(2):449–57.
• Moradi M, Salcudean SE, Chang SD, Jones EC, Buchan N, Casey RG, et al. Multiparametric MRI maps for detection and grading of dominant prostate tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;35(6):1403–13.
• Nelson BA, Shappell SB, Chang SS, Wells N, Farnham SB, Smith JA, et al. Tumour volume is an independent predictor of prostate-specific antigen recurrence in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2006;97(6):1169–72.
• Park BH, Jeon HG, Choo SH, Jeong BC, Seo SI, Jeon SS, et al. Role of multiparametric 3.0-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging in patients with prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance. 2013; Available from: www.bjui.org
• Park SY, Jung DC, Oh YT, Cho NH, Choi YD, Ho Rha K, et al. Prostate cancer: PI-RADS Version 2 Helps Preoperatively Predict Clinically Significant Cancers. Radiol n Radiol. 2016;280(1).
• Pinthus JH, Witkos M, Fleshner NE, Sweet J, Evans A, Jewett MA, et al. Prostate Cancers Scored as Gleason 6 on Prostate Biopsy are Frequently Gleason 7 Tumors at Radical Prostatectomy: Implication on Outcome. J Urol. 2006 Sep 1;176(3):979–84.
• Scialpi M, Rondoni V, Aisa MC, Martorana E, D’Andrea A, Malaspina CM, et al. Is contrast enhancement needed for diagnostic prostate MRI? Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6(3):499–509.
• Seo JW, Shin SJ, Oh YT, Jung DC, Cho NH, Choi YD, et al. PI-RADS version 2: Detection of clinically significant cancer in patients with biopsy gleason score 6 prostate cancer. Am J Roentgenol. 2017;209(1):W1–9.
• Shankar V, Bangdiwala SI. Observer agreement paradoxes in 2x2 tables: comparison of agreement measures. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014;14:100
• Smith CP, #1 BA, Harmon SA, Barrett T, Bittencourt LK, Law YM, et al. Intra and Inter-Reader Reproducibility of PI-RADSv2: A multi-reader study HHS Public Access. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019;49(6):1694–703.
• Song W, Bang SH, Jeon HG, Jeong BC, Seo S Il, Jeon SS, et al. Role of PI-RADS Version 2 for Prediction of Upgrading in Biopsy-Proven Prostate Cancer With Gleason Score 6. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2018;16(4):281–7.
• Tamada T, Kido A, Takeuchi M, Yamamoto A, Miyaji Y, Kanomata N, et al. Comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and PI-RADS version 2.1 for the detection of transition zone prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2019 Dec 1;121:108704.
• Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y, Toshimitsu S, Yamashita T, Yamamoto A, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient values in peripheral and transition zones of the prostate: Comparison between normal and malignant prostatic tissues and correlation with histologic grade. J Magn Reson Imaging [Internet]. 2008 Sep 1 [cited 2020 Nov 17];28(3):720–6. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/jmri.21503
• Turkbey B, Brown AM, Sankineni S, Wood BJ, Pinto PA, Choyke PL. Multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of prostate cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016 Jul;66(4):326–36.
• Turkbey B, Pinto PA, Mani H, Bernardo M, Pang Y, McKinney YL, et al. Prostate cancer: Value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection - Histopathologic correlation. Radiology. 2010 Apr;255(1):89–99.
• Turkbey B, Shah VP, Pang Y, Bernardo M, Xu S, Kruecker J, et al. Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? Int Braz J Urol. 2011;37(2):275–6.
• Van As N, Charles-Edwards E, Jackson A, Jhavar S, Reinsberg S, Desouza N, et al. Correlation of diffusion-weighted MRI with whole mount radical prostatectomy specimens. Br J Radiol. 2008 Jun 28;81(966):456–62.
• Wang XZ, Wang B, Gao ZQ, Liu JG, Liu ZQ, Niu QL, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of prostate cancer: Correlation between apparent diffusion coefficient values and tumor proliferation. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009 Jun 1;29(6):1360–6.
• Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016 Jan 1;69(1):16–40.
• Woodfield CA, Tung GA, Grand DJ, Pezzullo JA, MacHan JT, Renzulli JF. Diffusion-weighted MRI of peripheral zone prostate cancer: Comparison of tumor apparent diffusion coefficient with gleason score and percentage of tumor on core biopsy. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(4):316–22.
• Zelhof B, Pickles M, Liney G, Gibbs P, Rodrigues G, Kraus S, et al. Correlation of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance data with cellularity in prostate cancer. BJU Int Urol Oncol Correl Diffus. 2008;
• Zhai L, Fan Y, Sun S, Wang H, Meng Y, Hu S, et al. PI-RADS v2 and periprostatic fat measured on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging can predict upgrading in radical prostatectomy pathology amongst patients with biopsy Gleason score 3 + 3 prostate cancer. Scand J Urol. 2018;52(5–6):333–9.