TY - JOUR
T1 - Diagnostic Performance of Multiparametric MRI for Detection of Prostate Cancer After Focal Therapy
AU - Petrocelli, Robert D.
AU - Bagga, Barun
AU - Kim, Sooah
AU - Prabhu, Vinay
AU - Qian, Kun
AU - Becher, Ezequiel
AU - Taneja, Samir S.
AU - Tong, Angela
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Background: Minimally invasive focal therapy of low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer is becoming more common and has demonstrated lower morbidity compared to other treatments. Multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has the potential to be an effective posttreatment evaluation method for residual/recurrent neoplasm. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the ability of mpMRI to detect residual/recurrent neoplasm after focal therapy treatment of prostate cancer using a 3-point Likert scale. Methods: This retrospective study included patients who underwent focal therapy utilizing cryoablation, high-frequency ultrasound, and radiofrequency ablation for low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer with baseline mpMRI and biopsy and a 6- to 12-month follow-up mpMRI and biopsy. Three abdominal fellowship-trained readers were asked to evaluate the follow-up mpMRI utilizing a 3-point Likert scale based on the level of suspicion as “nonviable,” “equivocal,” or “viable.” Diagnostic statistics and Light's κ for interreader variability were calculated. Results: A total of 142 patients were included (mean age, 65 ± 7 years). When considering “equivocal” or “viable” as positive, the overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for detecting recurrent grade group (GG) 2 or greater disease for Reader 1 were 0.47, 0.83, 0.24, 0.93, and 0.65; for Reader 2, 0.73, 0.75, 0.26, 0.96, and 0.74; and for Reader 3, 0.73, 0.57, 0.17, 0.95, and 0.65. When considering “viable” as positive, the overall sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and AUC for Reader 1 were 0.47, 0.92, 0.41, 0.94, and 0.69; for Reader 2, 0.33, 0.97, 0.56, 0.93, and 0.65; and for Reader 3, 0.53, 0.84, 0.29, 0.94, and 0.69. κ was 0.39. Conclusions: This study suggests that DCE and DWI are the most important sequences in mpMRI and demonstrates the efficacy of utilizing a 3-point grading system in detecting and diagnosing prostate cancer after focal therapy. Clinical Impact: mpMRI can be used to monitor for residual/recurrent disease after focal therapy.
AB - Background: Minimally invasive focal therapy of low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer is becoming more common and has demonstrated lower morbidity compared to other treatments. Multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has the potential to be an effective posttreatment evaluation method for residual/recurrent neoplasm. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the ability of mpMRI to detect residual/recurrent neoplasm after focal therapy treatment of prostate cancer using a 3-point Likert scale. Methods: This retrospective study included patients who underwent focal therapy utilizing cryoablation, high-frequency ultrasound, and radiofrequency ablation for low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer with baseline mpMRI and biopsy and a 6- to 12-month follow-up mpMRI and biopsy. Three abdominal fellowship-trained readers were asked to evaluate the follow-up mpMRI utilizing a 3-point Likert scale based on the level of suspicion as “nonviable,” “equivocal,” or “viable.” Diagnostic statistics and Light's κ for interreader variability were calculated. Results: A total of 142 patients were included (mean age, 65 ± 7 years). When considering “equivocal” or “viable” as positive, the overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for detecting recurrent grade group (GG) 2 or greater disease for Reader 1 were 0.47, 0.83, 0.24, 0.93, and 0.65; for Reader 2, 0.73, 0.75, 0.26, 0.96, and 0.74; and for Reader 3, 0.73, 0.57, 0.17, 0.95, and 0.65. When considering “viable” as positive, the overall sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and AUC for Reader 1 were 0.47, 0.92, 0.41, 0.94, and 0.69; for Reader 2, 0.33, 0.97, 0.56, 0.93, and 0.65; and for Reader 3, 0.53, 0.84, 0.29, 0.94, and 0.69. κ was 0.39. Conclusions: This study suggests that DCE and DWI are the most important sequences in mpMRI and demonstrates the efficacy of utilizing a 3-point grading system in detecting and diagnosing prostate cancer after focal therapy. Clinical Impact: mpMRI can be used to monitor for residual/recurrent disease after focal therapy.
KW - ablation
KW - focal therapy
KW - mpMRI
KW - MRI
KW - prostate cancer
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85212245913&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85212245913&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/RCT.0000000000001703
DO - 10.1097/RCT.0000000000001703
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85212245913
SN - 0363-8715
JO - Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography
JF - Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography
M1 - 10.1097/RCT.0000000000001703
ER -