Abstract

Simple SummaryFor patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, it is important to detect tumor growth beyond the prostate, as this can affect a patient’s prognosis, influence management decisions, and alter treatment strategies. It is recognized that on prostate MRI, some instances of extraprostatic tumor growth can be missed. In this study, we merged patient data from multiple hospitals in different countries and developed a type of mathematical formula called “nomogram” that combines MRI findings with other available patient data. The results of our study allow physicians to more accurately diagnose extraprostatic tumor growth by combining clinical, biopsy, and MRI-derived information according to their relative statistical importance.Background: To develop an international, multi-site nomogram for side-specific prediction of extraprostatic extension (EPE) of prostate cancer based on clinical, biopsy, and magnetic resonance imaging- (MRI) derived data. Methods: Ten institutions from the USA and Europe contributed clinical and side-specific biopsy and MRI variables of consecutive patients who underwent prostatectomy. A logistic regression model was used to develop a nomogram for predicting side-specific EPE on prostatectomy specimens. The performance of the statistical model was evaluated by bootstrap resampling and cross validation and compared with the performance of benchmark models that do not incorporate MRI findings. Results: Data from 840 patients were analyzed; pathologic EPE was found in 320/840 (31.8%). The nomogram model included patient age, prostate-specific antigen density, side-specific biopsy data (i.e., Gleason grade group, percent positive cores, tumor extent), and side-specific MRI features (i.e., presence of a PI-RADSv2 4 or 5 lesion, level of suspicion for EPE, length of capsular contact). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the new, MRI-inclusive model (0.828, 95% confidence limits: 0.805, 0.852) was significantly higher than that of any of the benchmark models (p < 0.001 for all). Conclusions: In an international, multi-site study, we developed an MRI-inclusive nomogram for the side-specific prediction of EPE of prostate cancer that demonstrated significantly greater accuracy than clinical benchmark models.

Highlights

  • The diverse natural history of localized prostate cancer makes accurate risk stratification a challenging but indispensable requirement for selecting the most appropriate management strategy for any individual patient

  • Because the aim of this study was side-specific prediction of extraprostatic extension (EPE) and the side-specific data completeness for targeted biopsies was less than 50%, these biopsies were not included in the statistical analyses

  • EPE was present in 320/840 prostatectomy specimens (38.1%), and the side-specific prevalence of EPE on histopathology was 365/1680 (21.7%)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The diverse natural history of localized prostate cancer makes accurate risk stratification a challenging but indispensable requirement for selecting the most appropriate management strategy for any individual patient. While multiple prospective studies and meta-analyses have shown that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reliably detects clinically significant prostate cancer [1,2], it lacks sensitivity for diagnosing extraprostatic disease extension (EPE) [3]. The single-center methodology of all these prior studies, limits their generalizability This is so because radiologists from different institutions might recognize and interpret MRI findings differently [18], and because patient selection and management may differ between institutions. Multi-site nomogram for side-specific prediction of extraprostatic extension (EPE) of prostate cancer based on clinical, biopsy, and magnetic resonance imaging- (MRI) derived data. Conclusions: In an international, multi-site study, we developed an MRI-inclusive nomogram for the side-specific prediction of EPE of prostate cancer that demonstrated significantly greater accuracy than clinical benchmark models

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call