Diagnostic Efficacy of Bi-Parametric Versus Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Detection of Prostate Cancer in Thai Patients
Keywords:
Prostate cancer, PCa, MRI prostate gland, bpMRI, mpMRIAbstract
Background: The bi-parametric MRI (bpMRI) was based on T2-weighted (T2W) imaging and functional sequence diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). The multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) comprises bpMRI and dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE). However, the value of DCE in the detection of prostate cancer is still controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of bpMRI versus mpMRI for prostate cancer.
Methods: Retrospective analysis of 109 patients who underwent mpMRI with prostate biopsy from January 2015 to March 2021. The bpMRI included T2W, DWI, and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) map, and DCE was added to the mpMRI with masked clinical and laboratory information. Two diagnostic radiologists interpreted both examinations separately. The performance, diagnostic test accuracy, and subgroup analysis were analyzed.
Results: Around one-third (31.2%) of 109 patients were positive malignancies. The diagnostic accuracy of bpMRI was less than mpMRI, especially in the PI-RADS 3 group. The intra-observer agreement between bpMRI and mpMRI was moderate. The inter-observer agreement between the two readers was minimal agreement. The mpMRI was more accurate in detecting prostate cancer than bpMRI, especially in the PI-RADS 3 group.
Conclusion: Our study showed that mpMRI was higher than bpMRI for detecting prostate cancer in both readers, especially diagnostic accuracy improvement in the PI-RADS 3 group.
References
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209-49. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660.
Alabousi M, Salameh JP, Gusenbauer K, et al. Biparametric vs multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of prostate cancer in treatment-naïve patients: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int. 2019;124(2):209-20. doi: 10.1111/bju.14759.
Stanzione A, Imbriaco M, Cocozza S, et al. Biparametric 3T Magnetic Resonance Imaging for prostatic cancer detection in a biopsy-naïve patient population: a further improvement of PI-RADS v2? Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(12):2269-74. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.10.009.
Thestrup KC, Logager V, Baslev I, et al. Biparametric versus multiparametric MRI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Acta Radiol Open. 2016;5(8):2058460116663046. doi: 10.1177/2058460116663046.
Kozlowski P, Chang SD, Meng R, et al. Combined prostate diffusion tensor imaging and dynamic contrast enhanced MRI at 3T--quantitative correlation with biopsy. Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;28(5):621-8. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2010.03.011.
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69(1):16-40. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052.
Manenti G, Nezzo M, Chegai F, et al. DWI of Prostate Cancer: Optimal b-Value in Clinical Practice. Prostate Cancer. 2014;2014:868269. doi: 10.1155/2014/868269.
Lee H, Hwang SI, Lee HJ, et al. Diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted imaging for prostate cancer: Peripheral zone versus transition zone. PLoS One. 2018;13(6):e0199636. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199636.
Haider MA, van der Kwast TH, Tanguay J, et al. Combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI for localization of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(2):323-8. doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.2211.
Lovegrove CE, Matanhelia M, Randeva J, et al. Prostate imaging features that indicate benign or malignant pathology on biopsy. Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7(Suppl 4):S420-S435. doi: 10.21037/tau.2018.07.06.
Min BD, Kim WT, Cho BS, et al. Usefulness of a combined approach of t1-weighted, t2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced, and diffusion-weighted imaging in prostate cancer. Korean J Urol. 2012;53(12):830-5. doi: 10.4111/kju.2012.53.12.830.
Bhavsar A, Verma S. Anatomic imaging of the prostate. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:728539. doi: 10.1155/2014/728539.
Patel U, Evans H. Radiographic anatomy of the prostate. In: Kirby RS, Partin AW, Feneley MR, Parsons JK, editors. Prostate Cancer: Principles and Practice. London: Taylor & Francis, 2006;487-94.
Sklinda K, Frączek M, Mruk B, et al. Normal 3T MR Anatomy of the Prostate Gland and Surrounding Structures. Adv Med. 2019;2019:3040859. doi: 10.1155/2019/3040859.
Gatti M, Faletti R, Calleris G, et al. Prostate cancer detection with biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) by readers with different experience: performance and comparison with multiparametric (mpMRI). Abdom Radiol (NY). 2019;44(5):1883-93. doi: 10.1007/s00261-019-01934-3.
Zawaideh JP, Sala E, Shaida N, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of biparametric versus multiparametric prostate MRI: assessment of contrast benefit in clinical practice. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(7):4039-49. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06782-0.
Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, et al. Head-to-Head Comparison Between Biparametric and Multiparametric MRI for the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;211(5):W226-W241. doi: 10.2214/AJR.18.19880.
Kızılay F, Çelik S, Sözen S, et al. Correlation of Prostate-Imaging Reporting and Data Scoring System scoring on multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging with histopathological factors in radical prostatectomy material in Turkish prostate cancer patients: a multicenter study of the Urooncology Association. Prostate Int. 2020;8(1):10-15. doi: 10.1016/j.prnil.2020.01.001.
Mehralivand S, Shih JH, Rais-Bahrami S, et al. A Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Prediction Model for Prostate Biopsy Risk Stratification. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(5):678-85. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.5667.
Yu J, Fulcher AS, Winks SG, et al. Diagnosis of typical and atypical transition zone prostate cancer and its mimics at multiparametric prostate MRI. Br J Radiol. 2017;90(1073):20160693. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20160693.
Lewis S, Besa C, Rosen A, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for transition zone prostate cancer: essential findings, limitations, and future directions. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2017;42(11):2732-44. doi: 10.1007/s00261-017-1184-6.
Yoshizako T, Wada A, Hayashi T, et al. Usefulness of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate transition-zone cancer. Acta Radiol. a2008;49(10):1207-13. doi: 10.1080/02841850802508959.
Gupta RT, Spilseth B, Patel N, et al. Multiparametric prostate MRI: focus on T2-weighted imaging and role in staging of prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2016;41(5):831-43. doi: 10.1007/s00261-015-0579-5.
Brown LC, Ahmed HU, Faria R, et al. Multiparametric MRI to improve detection of prostate cancer compared with transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy alone: the PROMIS study. Health Technol Assess. 2018;22(39):1-176. doi: 10.3310/hta22390.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 The Royal College of Surgeons of Thailand
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Articles must be contributed solely to The Thai Journal of Surgery and when published become the property of the Royal College of Surgeons of Thailand. The Royal College of Surgeons of Thailand reserves copyright on all published materials and such materials may not be reproduced in any form without the written permission.
