The utility of magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for predicting insignificant prostate cancer

An initial analysis

Amita Shukla-Dave, Hedvig Hricak, Michael W. Kattan, Darko Pucar, Kentaro Kuroiwa, Hui Ni Chen, Jessica Spector, Jason A. Koutcher, Kristen L. Zakian, Peter T. Scardino

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

133 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To design new models that combine clinical variables and biopsy data with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) data, and assess their value in predicting the probability of insignificant prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 220 patients (cT stage T1c or T2a, prostate-specific antigen level <20 ng/mL, biopsy Gleason score 6) had MRI/MRSI before surgery and met the inclusion criteria for the study. The probability of insignificant cancer was recorded retrospectively and separately for MRI and combined MRI/MRSI on a 0-3 scale (0, definitely insignificant; - 3, definitely significant). Insignificant cancer was defined from surgical pathology as organ-confined cancer of ≤ 0.5 cm3 with no poorly differentiated elements. The accuracy of predicting insignificant prostate cancer was assessed using areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs), for previously reported clinical models and for newly generated MR models combining clinical variables, and biopsy data with MRI data (MRI model) and MRI/MRSI data (MRI/MRSI model). RESULTS: At pathology, 41% of patients had insignificant cancer; both MRI (AUC 0.803) and MRI/MRSI (AUC 0.854) models incorporating clinical, biopsy and MR data performed significantly better than the basic (AUC 0.574) and more comprehensive medium (AUC 0.726) clinical models. The P values for the differences between the models were: base vs medium model, <0.001; base vs MRI model, <0.001; base vs MRI/MRSI model, <0.001; medium vs MRI model, <0.018; medium vs MRI/MRSI model, <0.001. CONCLUSIONS: The new MRI and MRI/MRSI models performed better than the clinical models for predicting the probability of insignificant prostate cancer. After appropriate validation, the new MRI and MRI/MRSI models might help in counselling patients who are considering choosing deferred therapy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)786-793
Number of pages8
JournalBJU International
Volume99
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2007

Fingerprint

Prostatic Neoplasms
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Area Under Curve
Biopsy
Neoplasms
Surgical Pathology
Neoplasm Grading
Prostate-Specific Antigen
ROC Curve
Counseling

Keywords

  • MRI
  • Magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging
  • Nomogram
  • Prostate cancer

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Shukla-Dave, A., Hricak, H., Kattan, M. W., Pucar, D., Kuroiwa, K., Chen, H. N., ... Scardino, P. T. (2007). The utility of magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for predicting insignificant prostate cancer: An initial analysis. BJU International, 99(4), 786-793. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.06689.x

The utility of magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for predicting insignificant prostate cancer : An initial analysis. / Shukla-Dave, Amita; Hricak, Hedvig; Kattan, Michael W.; Pucar, Darko; Kuroiwa, Kentaro; Chen, Hui Ni; Spector, Jessica; Koutcher, Jason A.; Zakian, Kristen L.; Scardino, Peter T.

In: BJU International, Vol. 99, No. 4, 01.04.2007, p. 786-793.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Shukla-Dave, A, Hricak, H, Kattan, MW, Pucar, D, Kuroiwa, K, Chen, HN, Spector, J, Koutcher, JA, Zakian, KL & Scardino, PT 2007, 'The utility of magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for predicting insignificant prostate cancer: An initial analysis', BJU International, vol. 99, no. 4, pp. 786-793. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.06689.x
Shukla-Dave, Amita ; Hricak, Hedvig ; Kattan, Michael W. ; Pucar, Darko ; Kuroiwa, Kentaro ; Chen, Hui Ni ; Spector, Jessica ; Koutcher, Jason A. ; Zakian, Kristen L. ; Scardino, Peter T. / The utility of magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for predicting insignificant prostate cancer : An initial analysis. In: BJU International. 2007 ; Vol. 99, No. 4. pp. 786-793.
@article{2c89478dea764da5bd355faf1ad50695,
title = "The utility of magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for predicting insignificant prostate cancer: An initial analysis",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To design new models that combine clinical variables and biopsy data with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) data, and assess their value in predicting the probability of insignificant prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 220 patients (cT stage T1c or T2a, prostate-specific antigen level <20 ng/mL, biopsy Gleason score 6) had MRI/MRSI before surgery and met the inclusion criteria for the study. The probability of insignificant cancer was recorded retrospectively and separately for MRI and combined MRI/MRSI on a 0-3 scale (0, definitely insignificant; - 3, definitely significant). Insignificant cancer was defined from surgical pathology as organ-confined cancer of ≤ 0.5 cm3 with no poorly differentiated elements. The accuracy of predicting insignificant prostate cancer was assessed using areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs), for previously reported clinical models and for newly generated MR models combining clinical variables, and biopsy data with MRI data (MRI model) and MRI/MRSI data (MRI/MRSI model). RESULTS: At pathology, 41{\%} of patients had insignificant cancer; both MRI (AUC 0.803) and MRI/MRSI (AUC 0.854) models incorporating clinical, biopsy and MR data performed significantly better than the basic (AUC 0.574) and more comprehensive medium (AUC 0.726) clinical models. The P values for the differences between the models were: base vs medium model, <0.001; base vs MRI model, <0.001; base vs MRI/MRSI model, <0.001; medium vs MRI model, <0.018; medium vs MRI/MRSI model, <0.001. CONCLUSIONS: The new MRI and MRI/MRSI models performed better than the clinical models for predicting the probability of insignificant prostate cancer. After appropriate validation, the new MRI and MRI/MRSI models might help in counselling patients who are considering choosing deferred therapy.",
keywords = "MRI, Magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging, Nomogram, Prostate cancer",
author = "Amita Shukla-Dave and Hedvig Hricak and Kattan, {Michael W.} and Darko Pucar and Kentaro Kuroiwa and Chen, {Hui Ni} and Jessica Spector and Koutcher, {Jason A.} and Zakian, {Kristen L.} and Scardino, {Peter T.}",
year = "2007",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.06689.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "99",
pages = "786--793",
journal = "BJU International",
issn = "1464-4096",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The utility of magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for predicting insignificant prostate cancer

T2 - An initial analysis

AU - Shukla-Dave, Amita

AU - Hricak, Hedvig

AU - Kattan, Michael W.

AU - Pucar, Darko

AU - Kuroiwa, Kentaro

AU - Chen, Hui Ni

AU - Spector, Jessica

AU - Koutcher, Jason A.

AU - Zakian, Kristen L.

AU - Scardino, Peter T.

PY - 2007/4/1

Y1 - 2007/4/1

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To design new models that combine clinical variables and biopsy data with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) data, and assess their value in predicting the probability of insignificant prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 220 patients (cT stage T1c or T2a, prostate-specific antigen level <20 ng/mL, biopsy Gleason score 6) had MRI/MRSI before surgery and met the inclusion criteria for the study. The probability of insignificant cancer was recorded retrospectively and separately for MRI and combined MRI/MRSI on a 0-3 scale (0, definitely insignificant; - 3, definitely significant). Insignificant cancer was defined from surgical pathology as organ-confined cancer of ≤ 0.5 cm3 with no poorly differentiated elements. The accuracy of predicting insignificant prostate cancer was assessed using areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs), for previously reported clinical models and for newly generated MR models combining clinical variables, and biopsy data with MRI data (MRI model) and MRI/MRSI data (MRI/MRSI model). RESULTS: At pathology, 41% of patients had insignificant cancer; both MRI (AUC 0.803) and MRI/MRSI (AUC 0.854) models incorporating clinical, biopsy and MR data performed significantly better than the basic (AUC 0.574) and more comprehensive medium (AUC 0.726) clinical models. The P values for the differences between the models were: base vs medium model, <0.001; base vs MRI model, <0.001; base vs MRI/MRSI model, <0.001; medium vs MRI model, <0.018; medium vs MRI/MRSI model, <0.001. CONCLUSIONS: The new MRI and MRI/MRSI models performed better than the clinical models for predicting the probability of insignificant prostate cancer. After appropriate validation, the new MRI and MRI/MRSI models might help in counselling patients who are considering choosing deferred therapy.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To design new models that combine clinical variables and biopsy data with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) data, and assess their value in predicting the probability of insignificant prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 220 patients (cT stage T1c or T2a, prostate-specific antigen level <20 ng/mL, biopsy Gleason score 6) had MRI/MRSI before surgery and met the inclusion criteria for the study. The probability of insignificant cancer was recorded retrospectively and separately for MRI and combined MRI/MRSI on a 0-3 scale (0, definitely insignificant; - 3, definitely significant). Insignificant cancer was defined from surgical pathology as organ-confined cancer of ≤ 0.5 cm3 with no poorly differentiated elements. The accuracy of predicting insignificant prostate cancer was assessed using areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs), for previously reported clinical models and for newly generated MR models combining clinical variables, and biopsy data with MRI data (MRI model) and MRI/MRSI data (MRI/MRSI model). RESULTS: At pathology, 41% of patients had insignificant cancer; both MRI (AUC 0.803) and MRI/MRSI (AUC 0.854) models incorporating clinical, biopsy and MR data performed significantly better than the basic (AUC 0.574) and more comprehensive medium (AUC 0.726) clinical models. The P values for the differences between the models were: base vs medium model, <0.001; base vs MRI model, <0.001; base vs MRI/MRSI model, <0.001; medium vs MRI model, <0.018; medium vs MRI/MRSI model, <0.001. CONCLUSIONS: The new MRI and MRI/MRSI models performed better than the clinical models for predicting the probability of insignificant prostate cancer. After appropriate validation, the new MRI and MRI/MRSI models might help in counselling patients who are considering choosing deferred therapy.

KW - MRI

KW - Magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging

KW - Nomogram

KW - Prostate cancer

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33947304021&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33947304021&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.06689.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.06689.x

M3 - Article

VL - 99

SP - 786

EP - 793

JO - BJU International

JF - BJU International

SN - 1464-4096

IS - 4

ER -