Multiparametric <scp>MRI</scp>: an important tool to improve risk stratification for active surveillance in prostate cancer

Chandrasekar, Thenappan; Dall′Era, Marc; Tilki, Derya

doi:10.1111/bju.14494

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) stratifies the risk of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa, Gleason ≥ 3 + 4) and monitors patients enrolled in active surveillance (AS) programs [1,2]. After an initial PCa diagnosis, confirmatory prostate biopsies may be recommended to better identify otherwise occult csPCa [3,4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Abbreviated Versus Multiparametric Prostate MRI in Active Surveillance for Prostate-Cancer Patients: Comparison of Accuracy and Clinical Utility as a Decisional Tool

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(1) Purpose: To compare the diagnostic accuracy between full multiparametric contrast-enhanced prostate MRI (mpMRI) and abbreviated dual-sequence prostate MRI (dsMRI) in men with clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) who were candidates for active surveillance. (2) Materials and Methods: Fifty-four patients with a diagnosis of low-risk PCa in the previous 6 months had a mpMRI scan prior to a saturation biopsy and a subsequent MRI cognitive transperineal targeted biopsy (for PI-RADS ≥ 3 lesions). The dsMRI images were obtained from the mpMRI protocol. The images were selected by a study coordinator and assigned to two readers blinded to the biopsy results (R1 and R2). Inter-reader agreement for clinically significant cancer was evaluated with Cohen’s kappa. The dsMRI and mpMRI accuracy was calculated for each reader (R1 and R2). The clinical utility of the dsMRI and mpMRI was investigated with a decision-analysis model. (3) Results: The dsMRI sensitivity and specificity were 83.3%, 31.0%, 75.0%, and 23.8%, respectively, for R1 and R2. The mpMRI sensitivity and specificity were 91.7%, 31.0%, 83.3%, and 23.8%, respectively, for R1 and R2. The inter-reader agreement for the detection of csPCa was moderate (k = 0.53) and good (k = 0.63) for dsMRI and mpMRI, respectively. The AUC values for the dsMRI were 0.77 and 0.62 for the R1 and R2, respectively. The AUC values for the mpMRI were 0.79 and 0.66 for R1 and R2, respectively. No AUC differences were found between the two MRI protocols. At any risk threshold, the mpMRI showed a higher net benefit than the dsMRI for both R1 and R2. (4) Conclusions: The dsMRI and mpMRI showed similar diagnostic accuracy for csPCa in male candidates for active surveillance.

show abstract