Fitting methods for intravoxel incoherent motion imaging of prostate cancer on region of interest level: Repeatability and gleason score prediction

Abstract Background To demonstrate possible advantages with Bi-parametric MRI fusion-guided repeat biopsy over systematic 10-12-core biopsy for diagnosis of prostate cancer. Methods All patients who underwent fusion guided biopsy between February 2015 to February 2017 were included. Four hundred twenty-three consecutive men, with previous systematic10-12-core TRUS-guided biopsy, with suspicion of or low-risk prostate cancer underwent fusion-guided prostate biopsy. The material was retrospectively assessed. In 220 cases no previous cancer was diagnosed and in 203 cases confirmatory fusion guided biopsy was performed prior to active monitoring. MRI was done and classified according to PI-RADS. Region of Interest (ROI) was marked. Systematic biopsy was compared to fusion guided biopsy for detection of cancer, as well as PI-RADS was compared to Gleason score. Results Fusion guided biopsy detected significantly more cancers than systematic (p < 0.001). Gleason scores were higher in the fusion biopsy group (p < 0,001). PI-RADS score correlated with the presence of cancer in fusion biopsies. PI-RADS 2 yielded 19% cancer and PI-RADS 3 56%, PI-RADS 4–5 were cancerous in 83%. Only 3 out of 53 biopsies from PI-RADS 2 lesions showed high grade cancer (Gleason score 4 + 3 and higher) compared to 10/133 (7,5%) from PI-RADS 3 lesions and 54/239 (23%) from PI-RADS 4–5. Conclusion These results show superior detection rate and grading of bi-parametric MRI/TRUS fusion targeted repeat biopsy over systematic 10–12 core biopsies. Fusion guided biopsy detects more significant cancers despite using fewer cores. There is significant impact on known cases of low-risk PCa with change of risk group for many patients initially selected for active surveillance.

Download Full-text

418: Association between the Dihydrotestosterone Level in the Prostate and Prostate Cancer Aggressiveness Using the Gleason Score

The Journal of Urology ◽

10.1016/s0022-5347(18)32674-0 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 175 (4S) ◽

pp. 136-136

Author(s):

Tsutomu Nishiyama ◽

Toshihiko Ikarashi ◽

Yutaka Hashimoto ◽

Kazuya Suzuki ◽

Kota Takahashi

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Gleason Score ◽

Cancer Aggressiveness

Download Full-text

Gleason Score for Prostate Cancer

10.32388/7n3w6m ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Gleason Score

Download Full-text

Large cribriform growth pattern identifies men with aggressive Gleason score 3+4=7 prostate cancer

10.26226/morressier.5b47098a6f4cb3001095184a ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Eva Hollemans ◽

Esther Verhoef

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Gleason Score ◽

Growth Pattern

Download Full-text

Faculty Opinions recommendation of PSA failure following definitive treatment of prostate cancer having biopsy Gleason score 7 with tertiary grade 5.

Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature ◽

10.3410/f.1093772.548694 ◽

2007 ◽

Author(s):

Damien Bolton

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Gleason Score ◽

Definitive Treatment ◽

Grade 5 ◽

Psa Failure ◽

Biopsy Gleason Score

Download Full-text

The role of pre-biopsy mpMRI in lymph node staging for prostate cancer

Urologia Journal ◽

10.1177/03915603211016805 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 039156032110168

Author(s):

Nassib Abou Heidar ◽

Robert El-Doueihi ◽

Ali Merhe ◽

Paul Ramia ◽

Gerges Bustros ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Lymph Node ◽

High Risk ◽

Gleason Score ◽

Gold Standard ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Cross Sectional Imaging ◽

Sectional Imaging ◽

Kappa Agreement

Introduction: Prostate cancer (PCa) staging is an integral part in the management of prostate cancer. The gold standard for diagnosing lymph node invasion is a surgical lymphadenectomy, with no superior imaging modality available at the clinician’s disposal. Our aim in this study is to identify if a pre-biopsy multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) can provide enough information about pelvic lymph nodes in intermediate and high risk PCa patients, and whether it can substitute further cross sectional imaging (CSI) modalities of the abdomen and pelvis in these risk categories. Methods: Patients with intermediate and high risk prostate cancer were collected between January 2015 and June 2019, while excluding patients who did not undergo a pre-biopsy mpMRI or a CSI. Date regarding biopsy result, PSA, MRI results, CSI imaging results were collected. Using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 24.0, statistical analysis was conducted using the Cohen’s Kappa agreement for comparison of mpMRI with CSI. McNemar’s test and receiver operator curve (ROC) curve were used for comparison of sensitivity of both tests when comparing to the gold standard of lymphadenectomy. Results: A total of 143 patients fit the inclusion criteria. We further stratified our patients into according to PSA level and Gleason score. Overall, agreement between mpMRI and all CSI was 0.857. When stratifying patients based on Gleason score and PSA, the higher the grade or PSA, the higher agreement between mpMRI and CSI. The sensitivity of mpMRI (73.7%) is similar to CSI (68.4%). When comparing CSI sensitivity to that of mpMRI, no significant difference was present by utilizing the McNemar test and very similar receiver operating characteristic curve. Conclusion: A pre-biopsy mpMRI can potentially substitute further cross sectional imaging in our cohort of patients. However, larger prospective studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Download Full-text