Comparison of multiparametric and biparametric magnetic resonance imaging protocols for prostate cancer diagnosis by radiologists with different experience

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging can detect clinically significant prostate cancer and diagnose extracapsular extension and cancer stage. A scanning protocol that includes only T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted images represents a viable alternative to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging provided that the high diagnostic accuracy of the test is maintained. In recent studies, biparametric and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated slight differences in the diagnostic accuracy in detecting prostate cancer.

AIM: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of biparametric and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using PI-RADS v2.1 with magnetic resonance imaging-guided multifocal biopsy as the gold standard.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study initially processed the medical records of 126 patients. The inclusion criteria were as follows: presence of PI-RADS 2.1 multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, clinical information on free and bound prostate-specific antigen blood levels, a multifocal prostate biopsy performed, and a time interval between magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy of no more than 14 days. Three investigators (radiologists with <2, 2–5, and >5 years of experience) independently evaluated biparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate for the presence of pathological foci. After 2 weeks, the researchers evaluated the multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging dataset of the prostate. Each lesion detected, starting from PI-RADS category 3, was compared with the result of a multifocal fusion biopsy. The biopsy result was presented as a sum of Gleason scores, and a Gleason score of ≥7 was considered clinically relevant. According to magnetic resonance imaging data, findings meeting PI-RADS criteria 4 and 5 were considered tumor foci.

RESULTS: The best values of sensitivity and specificity of foci detection on magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate gland were 62.5% and 74.6%, respectively. The highest diagnostic accuracy achieved was 70.1%. Magnetic resonance imaging had higher specificity rates for detecting prostatic foci when interpreted by radiologists with 2 years and >5 years of experience.

CONCLUSION: Both biparametric and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate demonstrated suboptimal diagnostic accuracy. The sensitivity and specificity of the method tended to improve with increasing experience of the radiologist. Biparametric protocols of prostate scanning have a definite economic advantage over multiparametric protocols because of the absence of contrast agents and consumables and a significant decrease in magnetic resonance scanner loading time; however, their use can lead to a decrease in the diagnostic accuracy of the method.

Keywords

magnetic resonance imaging / MRI / prostate cancer / PI-RADS

References

[1] Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 Update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol. 2019;76(3):340–351. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.0331

[2] Turkbey B., Rosenkrantz A.B., Haider M.A., et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 Update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 // Eur Urol. 2019. Vol. 76, N 3. P. 340–351. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033

[3] Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 Update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol. 2019;76(3):340–351. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.0331

[4] Bjurlin MA, Carroll PR, Eggener S, et al. Update of the standard operating procedure on the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis, staging and management of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2020;203(4):706–712. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000617

[5] Bjurlin M.A., Carroll P.R., Eggener S., et al. Update of the standard operating procedure on the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis, staging and management of prostate cancer // J Urol. 2020. Vol. 203, N 4. P. 706–712. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000617

[6] Bjurlin MA, Carroll PR, Eggener S, et al. Update of the standard operating procedure on the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis, staging and management of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2020;203(4):706–712. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000617

[7] Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, et al. Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): A prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncology. 2019;20(1):100–109. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2

[8] Rouvière O., Puech P., Renard-Penna R., et al. Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): A prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study // Lancet Oncology. 2019. Vol. 20, N 1. P. 100–109. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2

[9] Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, et al. Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): A prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncology. 2019;20(1):100–109. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2

[10] Boesen L, Thomsen FB, Nørgaard N, et al. A predictive model based on biparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical parameters for improved risk assessment and selection of biopsy-naïve men for prostate biopsies. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2019;22(4):609–616. doi: 10.1038/s41391-019-0149-y

[11] Boesen L., Thomsen F.B., Nørgaard N., et al. A predictive model based on biparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical parameters for improved risk assessment and selection of biopsy-naïve men for prostate biopsies // Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2019. Vol. 22, N 4. P. 609–616. doi: 10.1038/s41391-019-0149-y

[12] Boesen L, Thomsen FB, Nørgaard N, et al. A predictive model based on biparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical parameters for improved risk assessment and selection of biopsy-naïve men for prostate biopsies. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2019;22(4):609–616. doi: 10.1038/s41391-019-0149-y

[13] Tamada T, Kido A, Yamamoto A, et al. Comparison of biparametric and multiparametric MRI for clinically significant prostate cancer detection with PI-RADS Version 2.1. J Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2021;53(1):283–291. doi: 10.1002/jmri.27283

[14] Tamada T., Kido A., Yamamoto A., et al. Comparison of biparametric and multiparametric MRI for clinically significant prostate cancer detection with PI-RADS Version 2.1 // J Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2021. Vol. 53, N 1. P. 283–291. doi: 10.1002/jmri.27283

[15] Tamada T, Kido A, Yamamoto A, et al. Comparison of biparametric and multiparametric MRI for clinically significant prostate cancer detection with PI-RADS Version 2.1. J Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2021;53(1):283–291. doi: 10.1002/jmri.27283

[16] Wallström J, Geterud K, Kohestani K, et al. Bi- or multiparametric MRI in a sequential screening program for prostate cancer with PSA followed by MRI? Results from the Göteborg prostate cancer screening 2 trial. Eur Radiol. 2021;31(11):8692–8702. doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-07907-9

[17] Wallström J., Geterud K., Kohestani K., et al. Bi- or multiparametric MRI in a sequential screening program for prostate cancer with PSA followed by MRI? Results from the Göteborg prostate cancer screening 2 trial // Eur Radiol. 2021. Vol. 31, N 11. P. 8692–8702. doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-07907-9

[18] Wallström J, Geterud K, Kohestani K, et al. Bi- or multiparametric MRI in a sequential screening program for prostate cancer with PSA followed by MRI? Results from the Göteborg prostate cancer screening 2 trial. Eur Radiol. 2021;31(11):8692–8702. doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-07907-9

[19] Kuhl CK, Bruhn R, Krämer N, et al. Abbreviated biparametric prostate MR imaging in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen. Radiology. 2017;285(2):493–505. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017170129

[20] Kuhl C.K., Bruhn R., Krämer N., et al. Abbreviated biparametric prostate MR imaging in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen // Radiology. 2017. Vol. 285, N 2. P. 493–505. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017170129

[21] Kuhl CK, Bruhn R, Krämer N, et al. Abbreviated biparametric prostate MR imaging in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen. Radiology. 2017;285(2):493–505. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017170129

[22] Abuladze LR, Semenov DS, Panina OV, Vasil AA. Optimized protocol of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate. Digital Diagnostics. 2022;3(3):166–177. doi: 10.17816/DD108484

[23] Абуладзе Л.Р., Семенов Д.С., Панина О.Ю., Васильев Ю.А. Оптимизированный протокол бипараметрической магнитно-резонансной томографии для диагностики рака предстательной железы // Digital Diagnostics. 2022. Т. 3, № 3. C. 166–177. doi: 10.17816/DD108484

[24] Abuladze LR, Semenov DS, Panina OV, Vasil AA. Optimized protocol of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate. Digital Diagnostics. 2022;3(3):166–177. doi: 10.17816/DD108484

[25] Schoots IG, Barentsz JO, Bittencourt LK, et al. PI-RADS committee position on MRI without contrast medium in biopsy-naive men with suspected prostate cancer: Narrative review. Am J Roentgenol. 2021;216(1):3–19. doi: 10.2214/AJR.20.24268

[26] Schoots I.G., Barentsz J.O., Bittencourt L.K., et al. PI-RADS committee position on MRI without contrast medium in biopsy-naive men with suspected prostate cancer: Narrative review // Am J Roentgenol. 2021. Vol. 216, N 1. P. 3–19. doi: 10.2214/AJR.20.24268

[27] Schoots IG, Barentsz JO, Bittencourt LK, et al. PI-RADS committee position on MRI without contrast medium in biopsy-naive men with suspected prostate cancer: Narrative review. Am J Roentgenol. 2021;216(1):3–19. doi: 10.2214/AJR.20.24268

[28] Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966;50(3):125–128.

[29] Gleason D.F. Classification of prostatic carcinomas // Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966. Vol. 50, N 3. P. 125–128.

[30] Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966;50(3):125–128.

[31] 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):4039–4049. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06782-0

[32] Zawaideh J.P., Sala E., Shaida N., et al. Diagnostic accuracy of biparametric versus multiparametric prostate MRI: Assessment of contrast benefit in clinical practice // Eur Radiol. 2020. Vol. 30, N 7. P. 4039–4049. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06782-0

[33] 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):4039–4049. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06782-0

[34] Kang Z, Min X, Weinreb J, et al. Abbreviated biparametric versus standard multiparametric MRI for diagnosis of prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Roentgenol. 2019;212(2):357–365. doi: 10.2214/AJR.18.20103

[35] Kang Z., Min X., Weinreb J., et al. Abbreviated biparametric versus standard multiparametric MRI for diagnosis of prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis // Am J Roentgenol. 2019. Vol. 212, N 2. P. 357–365. doi: 10.2214/AJR.18.20103

[36] Kang Z, Min X, Weinreb J, et al. Abbreviated biparametric versus standard multiparametric MRI for diagnosis of prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Roentgenol. 2019;212(2):357–365. doi: 10.2214/AJR.18.20103

[37] Niu XK, Chen XH, Chen ZF, et al. Diagnostic performance of biparametric MRI for detection of prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Roentgenol. 2018;211(2):369–378. doi: 10.2214/AJR.17.18946

[38] Niu X.K., Chen X.H., Chen Z.F., et al. Diagnostic performance of biparametric MRI for detection of prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis // Am J Roentgenol. 2018. Vol. 211, N 2. P. 369–378. doi: 10.2214/AJR.17.18946

[39] Niu XK, Chen XH, Chen ZF, et al. Diagnostic performance of biparametric MRI for detection of prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Roentgenol. 2018;211(2):369–378. doi: 10.2214/AJR.17.18946

[40] Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): A paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389(10071):815–822. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1

[41] Ahmed H.U., El-Shater Bosaily A., Brown L.C., et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): A paired validating confirmatory study // Lancet. 2017. Vol. 389, N 10071. P. 815–822. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1

[42] Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): A paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389(10071):815–822. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1

[43] McDonald RJ, Levine D, Weinreb J, et al. Gadolinium retention: A research roadmap from the 2018 NIH/ACR/RSNA workshop on gadolinium chelates. Radiology. 2018;289(2):517–534. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018181151

[44] McDonald R.J., Levine D., Weinreb J., et al. Gadolinium retention: A research roadmap from the 2018 NIH/ACR/RSNA workshop on gadolinium chelates // Radiology. 2018. Vol. 289, N 2. P. 517–534. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018181151

[45] McDonald RJ, Levine D, Weinreb J, et al. Gadolinium retention: A research roadmap from the 2018 NIH/ACR/RSNA workshop on gadolinium chelates. Radiology. 2018;289(2):517–534. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018181151

[46] Ploussard G, Epstein JI, Montironi R, et al. The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2011;60(2):291–303. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.05.006

[47] Ploussard G., Epstein J.I., Montironi R., et al. The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer // Eur Urol. 2011. Vol. 60, N 2. P. 291–303. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.05.006

[48] Ploussard G, Epstein JI, Montironi R, et al. The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2011;60(2):291–303. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.05.006

[49] Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64(6):876–892. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.049

[50] Loeb S., Vellekoop A., Ahmed H.U., et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy // Eur Urol. 2013. Vol. 64, N 6. P. 876–892. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.049

[51] Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64(6):876–892. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.049

[52] Campli ED, Pizzi DA, Seccia B, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of biparametric vs multiparametric MRI in clinically significant prostate cancer: Comparison between readers with different experience. Eur J Radiol. 2018;(101):17–23. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.01.028

[53] Campli E.D., Pizzi D.A., Seccia B., et al. Diagnostic accuracy of biparametric vs multiparametric MRI in clinically significant prostate cancer: Comparison between readers with different experience // Eur J Radiol. 2018. N 101. P. 17–23. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.01.028

[54] Campli ED, Pizzi DA, Seccia B, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of biparametric vs multiparametric MRI in clinically significant prostate cancer: Comparison between readers with different experience. Eur J Radiol. 2018;(101):17–23. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.01.028

[55] 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). Abdominal Radiol (New York). 2019;44(5):1883–1893. doi: 10.1007/s00261-019-01934-3

[56] 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) // Abdominal Radiol (New York). 2019. Vol. 44, N 5. P. 1883–1893. doi: 10.1007/s00261-019-01934-3

[57] 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). Abdominal Radiol (New York). 2019;44(5):1883–1893. doi: 10.1007/s00261-019-01934-3

Funding

Департамент здравоохранения города МосквыMoscow Health Care DepartmentMoscow Health Care Department(123031500005-2)

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Eco-Vector