Investigative and Clinical Urology

The Korean Urological Association (대한비뇨의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Inflammation appears as high Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System scores on prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) leading to false positive MRI fusion biopsy

  • Rourke, Elizabeth (Department of Urology, University of Texas Health San Antonio) ;
  • Sunnapwar, Abhijit (Department of Radiology, University of Texas Health San Antonio) ;
  • Mais, Daniel (Department of Pathology, University of Texas Health San Antonio) ;
  • Kukkar, Vishal (Department of Radiology, University of Texas Health San Antonio) ;
  • DiGiovanni, John (University of Texas Austin, College of Pharmacy) ;
  • Kaushik, Dharam (Department of Urology, University of Texas Health San Antonio) ;
  • Liss, Michael A. (Department of Urology, University of Texas Health San Antonio)
  • Received : 2018.12.30
  • Accepted : 2019.05.07
  • Published : 2019.09.22
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate if inflammation as a potential cause of false-positive lesions from recent UroNav magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) fusion prostate biopsy patients. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively identified 43 men with 61 MRI lesions noted on prostate MRI before MRI ultrasound-guided fusion prostate biopsy. Men underwent MRI with 3T Siemens TIM Trio MRI system (Siemens AG, Germany), and lesions were identified and marked in DynaCAD system (Invivo Corporation, USA) with subsequent biopsy with MRI fusion with UroNav. We obtained targeted and standard 12-core needle biopsies. We retrospectively reviewed pathology reports for inflammation. Results: We noted a total of 43 (70.5%) false-positive lesions with 28 having no cancer on any cores, and 15 lesions with cancer noted on systematic biopsy but not in the target region. Of the men with cancer, 6 of the false positive lesions had inflammation in the location of the targeted region of interest (40.0%, 6/15). However, when we examine the 21/28 lesions with an identified lesion on MRI with no cancer in all cores, 54.5% had inflammation on prostate biopsy pathology (12/22, p=0.024). We noted the highest proportion of inflammation. Conclusions: Inflammation can confound the interpretation of MRI by mimicking prostate cancer. We suggested focused efforts to differentiate inflammation and cancer on prostate MRI.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the NIH (P30CA054174) the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs through the Prostate Cancer Research Program under Award No. W81XWH-15-1-0441. Opinions, interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author and are not necessarily endorsed by the Department of Defense.

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:7-30. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21387
  2. Haffty BG, Lawton CA, Sandler H. Watchful waiting-active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer. JAMA Oncol 2015;1:688-9. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.1214
  3. Filippou P, Welty CJ, Cowan JE, Perez N, Shinohara K, Carroll PR. Immediate versus delayed radical prostatectomy: updated outcomes following active surveillance of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2015;68:458-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.011
  4. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George AK, Rothwax J, Shakir N, et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusionguided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 2015;313:390-7. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.17942
  5. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al.; PRECISION Study Group Collaborators. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostatecancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018;378:1767-77. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
  6. Marconi L, Dabestani S, Lam TB, Hofmann F, Stewart F, Norrie J, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy of percutaneous renal tumour biopsy. Eur Urol 2016;69:660-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.072
  7. Sciarra A, Panebianco V, Ciccariello M, Salciccia S, Lisi D, Osimani M, et al. Magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (1HMRSI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance (DCE-MRI): pattern changes from inflammation to prostate cancer. Cancer Invest 2010;28:424-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/07357900903287048
  8. Cheng Y, Zhang X, Ji Q, Shen W. Xanthogranulomatous prostatitis: multiparametric MRI appearances. Clin Imaging 2014;38:755-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2014.03.008
  9. Jyoti R, Jina NH, Haxhimolla HZ. In-gantry MRI guided prostate biopsy diagnosis of prostatitis and its relationship with PIRADS V.2 based score. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2017;61:212-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.12555
  10. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging-reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 2016;69:16-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052
  11. Klotz L, Loblaw A, Sugar L, Moussa M, Berman DM, Van der Kwast T, et al. Active Surveillance Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study (ASIST): results of a randomized multicenter prospective trial. Eur Urol 2019;75:300-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.06.025
  12. Rosenkrantz AB, Verma S, Choyke P, Eberhardt SC, Eggener SE, Gaitonde K, et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a prior negative biopsy: a consensus statement by AUA and SAR. J Urol 2016;196:1613-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.079
  13. Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, Eberhardt SC, Olgac S, Muruganandham M, Scardino PT, et al. Chronic prostatitis: MR imaging and 1H MR spectroscopic imaging findings--initial observations. Radiology 2004;231:717-24. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2313031391
  14. Nagel KN, Schouten MG, Hambrock T, Litjens GJ, Hoeks CM, ten Haken B, et al. Differentiation of prostatitis and prostate cancer by using diffusion-weighted MR imaging and MRguided biopsy at 3 T. Radiology 2013;267:164-72. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12111683
  15. White NS, McDonald C, Farid N, Kuperman J, Karow D, Schenker-Ahmed NM, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging in cancer: physical foundations and applications of restriction spectrum imaging. Cancer Res 2014;74:4638-52. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-13-3534
  16. Liss MA, White NS, Parsons JK, Schenker-Ahmed NM, Rakow- Penner R, Kuperman JM, et al. MRI-derived restriction spectrum imaging cellularity index is associated with high grade prostate cancer on radical prostatectomy specimens. Front Oncol 2015;5:30. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2015.00030
  17. White NS, Leergaard TB, D'Arceuil H, Bjaalie JG, Dale AM. Probing tissue microstructure with restriction spectrum imaging: histological and theoretical validation. Hum Brain Mapp 2013;34:327-46. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.21454
  18. White NS, McDonald CR, Farid N, Kuperman JM, Kesari S, Dale AM. Improved conspicuity and delineation of high-grade primary and metastatic brain tumors using "restriction spectrum imaging": quantitative comparison with high B-value DWI and ADC. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:958-64, S1. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A3327
  19. Yamin G, Schenker-Ahmed NM, Shabaik A, Adams D, Bartsch H, Kuperman J, et al. Voxel level radiologic-pathologic validation of restriction spectrum imaging cellularity index with gleason grade in prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2016;22:2668-74. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-2429
  20. Othman AE, Falkner F, Martirosian P, Schraml C, Schwentner C, Nickel D, et al. Optimized fast dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: effect of sampling duration on pharmacokinetic parameters. Invest Radiol 2016;51:106-12. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000213
  21. Mayer R, Simone CB 2nd, Skinner W, Turkbey B, Choykey P. Pilot study for supervised target detection applied to spatially registered multiparametric MRI in order to non-invasively score prostate cancer. Comput Biol Med 2018;94:65-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2018.01.003
  22. Tekin A, Yuksel A, Tekin S, Gumrukcu G, Aslan AR, Sengor F. Post-prostatic massage examination for prediction of asymptomatic prostatitis in needle biopsies: a prospective study. J Urol 2009;182:564-8; discussion 568-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.04.009
  23. De Luca S, Passera R, Fiori C, Bollito E, Cappia S, Mario Scarpa R, et al. Prostate health index and prostate cancer gene 3 score but not percent-free prostate specific antigen have a predictive role in differentiating histological prostatitis from PCa and other nonneoplastic lesions (BPH and HG-PIN) at repeat biopsy. Urol Oncol 2015;33:424.e17-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.05.032
  24. Hendriks RJ, van der Leest MMG, Dijkstra S, Barentsz JO, Van Criekinge W, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, et al. A urinary biomarker-based risk score correlates with multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection. Prostate 2017;77:1401-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.23401
  25. Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang R, Deng FM, Wysock JS, Bjurlin MA, et al. The institutional learning curve of magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted prostate biopsy: temporal improvements in cancer detection in 4 years. J Urol 2018;200:1022-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.06.012
  26. Ploussard G, Borgmann H, Briganti A, de Visschere P, Futterer JJ, Gandaglia G, et al.; EAU-YAU Prostate Cancer Working Group. Positive pre-biopsy MRI: are systematic biopsies still useful in addition to targeted biopsies? World J Urol 2019;37:243-51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2399-z

Cited by

  1. 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT combining ADC value of MRI in the diagnosis of naive prostate cancer : Perspective of radiologist vol.99, pp.36, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000020755
  2. Expected impact of MRI-related interreader variability on ProScreen prostate cancer screening trial: a pre-trial validation study vol.20, pp.1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-020-00351-w
  3. SUVmax/ADC ratio as a molecular imaging biomarker for diagnosis of biopsy-naïve primary prostate cancer vol.36, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.4103/ijnm.ijnm_62_21
  4. Impact of Chronic Prostatitis on the PI-RADS Score 3: Proposal for the Addition of a Novel Binary Suffix vol.11, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11040623
  5. The Etiology and Pathophysiology Genesis of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia and Prostate Cancer: A New Perspective vol.8, pp.6, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/medicines8060030
  6. Single-cell Spatial Proteomic Revelations on the Multiparametric MRI Heterogeneity of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer vol.27, pp.12, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-20-4217