Intravoxel incoherent motion predicts positive surgical margins and Gleason score upgrading after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer

被引:4
作者
Meng, Shuang [1 ]
Gan, Wanting [1 ]
Chen, Lihua [1 ]
Wang, Nan [1 ]
Liu, Ailian [1 ]
机构
[1] Dalian Med Univ, Dept Radiol, Affiliated Hosp 1, 222 Zhongshan Rd, Dalian 116011, Peoples R China
来源
RADIOLOGIA MEDICA | 2023年 / 128卷 / 06期
关键词
Prostate cancer; Positive surgical margins; Gleason score upgrading; MRI; APPARENT DIFFUSION-COEFFICIENT; BIOCHEMICAL RECURRENCE; ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE; BIOPSY; PATHOLOGY; TISSUE; SERIES; RISK;
D O I
10.1007/s11547-023-01645-2
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
BackgroundWhether Intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) can be used as a predictive tool of positive surgical margins (PSMs) and Gleason score (GS) upgrading in prostate cancer (PCa) patients after radical prostatectomy (RP) still remains unclear. The aim of this study is to explore the ability of IVIM and clinical characteristics to predict PSMs and GS upgrading.MethodsA total of 106 PCa patients after RP who underwent pelvic mpMRI (multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging) between January 2016 and December 2021 and met the requirements were retrospectively included in our study. IVIM parameters were obtained using GE Functool post-processing software. Logistic regression models were fitted to confirm the predictive risk factor of PSMs and GS upgrading. The area under the curve and fourfold contingency table were used to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of IVIM and clinical parameters.ResultsMultivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that percent of positive cores, apparent diffusion coefficient and molecular diffusion coefficient (D) were independent predictors of PSMs (Odds Ratio (OR) were 6.07, 3.62 and 3.16, respectively), Biopsy GS and pseudodiffusion coefficient (D*) were independent predictors of GS upgrading (OR were 0.563 and 7.15, respectively). The fourfold contingency table suggested that combined diagnosis increased the ability of predicting PSMs but had no advantage in predicting GS upgrading except the sensitivity from 57.14 to 91.43%.ConclusionsIVIM showed good performance in predicting PSMs and GS upgrading. Combining IVIM and clinical factors enhanced the performance of predicting PSMs, which may contribute to clinical diagnosis and treatment.
引用
收藏
页码:668 / 678
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
[31]   Predictive Factors for Positive Surgical Margins in Patients With Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [J].
Zhang, Lijin ;
Zhao, Hu ;
Wu, Bin ;
Zha, Zhenlei ;
Yuan, Jun ;
Feng, Yejun .
FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2021, 10
[32]   Prostate Volume is A Predictor of Gleason Score Upgrading after Radical Prostatectomy in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis [J].
Zou, Qianming ;
Cao, Jiadong ;
Chen, Zhiqiang ;
Wang, Shusheng ;
Gu, Chiming ;
Li, Siyi ;
Xiang, Songtao .
UROLOGY JOURNAL, 2024, 21 (01) :20-28
[33]   Positive Surgical Margins After Radical Prostatectomy: Does It Matter? [J].
Preston, Mark A. ;
Blute, Michael L. .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2014, 65 (02) :314-315
[34]   Positive Surgical Margins at Radical Prostatectomy Predict Prostate Cancer Specific Mortality [J].
Wright, Jonathan L. ;
Dalkin, Bruce L. ;
True, Lawrence D. ;
Ellis, William J. ;
Stanford, Janet L. ;
Lange, Paul H. ;
Lin, Daniel W. .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2010, 183 (06) :2213-2218
[35]   Nomograms for predicting Gleason upgrading in a contemporary Chinese cohort receiving radical prostatectomy after extended prostate biopsy: development and internal validation [J].
He, Biming ;
Chen, Rui ;
Gao, Xu ;
Ren, Shancheng ;
Yang, Bo ;
Hou, Jianguo ;
Wang, Linhui ;
Yang, Qing ;
Zhou, Tie ;
Zhao, Lin ;
Xu, Chuanliang ;
Sun, Yinghao .
ONCOTARGET, 2016, 7 (13) :17275-17285
[36]   The prognostic impact of downgrading and upgrading from biopsy to radical prostatectomy among men with Gleason score 7 prostate cancer [J].
Jang, Won Sik ;
Koh, Dong Hoon ;
Kim, Jongchan ;
Lee, Jong Soo ;
Chung, Doo Yong ;
Ham, Won Sik ;
Rha, Koon Ho ;
Choi, Young Deuk .
PROSTATE, 2019, 79 (16) :1805-1810
[37]   Positive Surgical Margins After Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Contemporary Update [J].
Yossepowitch, Ofer ;
Briganti, Alberto ;
Eastham, James A. ;
Epstein, Jonathan ;
Graefen, Markus ;
Montironi, Rodolfo ;
Touijer, Karim .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2014, 65 (02) :303-313
[38]   Apparent Diffusion Coefficient and Other Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Features for the Prediction of Positive Surgical Margins in Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy [J].
Alessi, Sarah ;
Maggioni, Roberta ;
Luzzago, Stefano ;
Colombo, Alberto ;
Pricolo, Paola ;
Summers, Paul E. ;
Saia, Giulia ;
Manzoni, Marco ;
Renne, Giuseppe ;
Marvaso, Giulia ;
De Cobelli, Ottavio ;
Bellomi, Massimo ;
Jereczek-Fossa, Barbara A. ;
Petralia, Giuseppe .
CLINICAL GENITOURINARY CANCER, 2021, 19 (06) :E335-E345
[39]   The outcome of patients with pathological Gleason score ≥8 prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy [J].
Rodriguez-Covarrubias, Francisco ;
Larre, Stephane ;
De La Taille, Alexandre ;
Abbou, Claude-Clement ;
Salomon, Laurent .
BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2008, 101 (03) :305-307
[40]   Tumor Biological Feature and Its Association with Positive Surgical Margins and Apical Margins after Radical Prostatectomy in Non-Metastasis Prostate Cancer [J].
Wang, Shuo ;
Du, Peng ;
Cao, Yudong ;
Yang, Xiao ;
Yang, Yong .
CURRENT ONCOLOGY, 2021, 28 (02) :1528-1536