Bosaily, AE-S;
Frangou, E;
Ahmed, HU;
Emberton, M;
Punwani, S;
Kaplan, R;
Brown, LC;
... PROMIS Group; + view all
(2020)
Additional Value of Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Sequences in Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Data from the PROMIS Study.
European Urology
, 78
(4)
pp. 503-511.
10.1016/j.eururo.2020.03.002.
Preview |
Text
Frangou_AK third revision round DCE paper_precisioncheckEF & AK.pdf - Accepted Version Download (678kB) | Preview |
Abstract
Background: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) is established in the diagnosis of prostate cancer, but the need for enhanced sequences has recently been questioned. / Objective: To assess whether dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (DCE) improves accuracy over T2 and diffusion sequences. / Design, setting, and participants: PROMIS was a multicentre, multireader trial, with, in this part, 497 biopsy-naïve men undergoing standardised 1.5T MP-MRI using T2, diffusion, and DCE, followed by a detailed transperineal prostate mapping (TPM) biopsy at 5 mm intervals. Likert scores of 1–5 for the presence of a significant tumour were assigned in strict sequence, for (1) T2 + diffusion and then (2) T2 + diffusion + dynamic contrast-enhanced images. / Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: For the primary analysis, the primary PROMIS outcome measure (Gleason score ≥4 + 3 or ≥6 mm maximum cancer length) on TPM was used, and an MRI score of ≥3 was considered positive. / Results and limitations: Sensitivity without and with DCE was 94% and 95%, specificity 37% and 38%, positive predictive value 51% and 51%, and negative predictive value 90% and 91%, respectively (p > 0.05 in each case). The number of patients avoiding biopsy (scoring 1–2) was similar (123/497 vs 121/497, p = 0.8). The number of equivocal scores (3/5) was slightly higher without DCE (32% vs 28% p = 0.031). The proportion of MRI equivocal (3/5) and positive (4–5) cases showing significant tumours were similar (23% and 71% vs 20% and 69%). No cases of dominant Gleason 4 or higher were missed with DCE, compared with a single case with T2 + diffusion-weighted imaging. No attempt was made to correlate lesion location on MRI and histology, which may be considered a limitation. Radiologists were aware of the patient’s prostate-specific antigen. / Conclusions: Contrast adds little when MP-MRI is used to exclude significant prostate cancer.
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
