Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Quantifying the Effect of Location Matching on Accuracy of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Prior to Prostate Biopsy—A Multicentre Study||Authors:||Louie-Johnsun, Mark ;Kim, Raymond ;Yuminaga, Yuigi ;Kam, Jonathan S ;Gavin, D.J.;Krelle, M.;Sutherland, T.;Koschel, S.;Jenkins, M.;Aluwihare, K.||Affliation:||Central Coast Local Health District
The University of Newcastle
|Issue Date:||Jul-2020||Source:||20:28-36||Journal title:||European Urology Open Science||Department:||Urology||Abstract:||Abstract Background Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has shown promise to improve detection of prostate cancer over conventional methods. However, most studies do not describe whether the location of mpMRI lesions match that of cancer found at biopsy, which may lead to an overestimation of accuracy. Objective To quantitate the effect of mapping locations of mpMRI lesions to locations of positive biopsy cores on the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of mpMRI. Design, setting, and participant We retrospectively identified patients having mpMRI of the prostate preceding prostate biopsy at three centres from 2013 to 2016. Men with targetable lesions on imaging underwent directed biopsy in addition to systematic biopsy. We correlated locations of positive mpMRI lesions with those of positive biopsy cores, defining a match when both were in the same sector of the prostate. We defined positive mpMRI as Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score ≥4 and significant cancer at biopsy as grade group ≥2. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were calculated with and without location matching. Results and limitations Of 446 patients, 247 (55.4%) had positive mpMRI and 232 (52.0%) had significant cancer at biopsy. Sensitivity and NPV for detecting significant cancer with location matching (both 63.4%) were decreased compared with those without location matching (77.6% and 73.9%, respectively). Of the 85 significant cancers not detected by mpMRI, most were of grade group 2 (64.7%, 55/85). Conclusions We report a 10–15% decrease in sensitivity and NPV when location matching was used to detect significant prostate cancer by mpMRI. False negative mpMRI remains an issue, highlighting the continued need for biopsy and for improving the standards around imaging quality and reporting. Patient summary The true accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) must be determined to interpret results and better counsel patients. We mapped the location of positive mpMRI lesions to where cancer was found at biopsy and found, when compared with matching to cancer anywhere in the prostate, that the accuracy of mpMRI decreased by 10–15%.||URI:||https://elibrary.cclhd.health.nsw.gov.au/cclhdjspui/handle/1/1854||DOI:||10.1016/j.euros.2020.07.001||Pubmed:||https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34337456/||ISSN:||2666-1683||Publicaton type:||Journal Article||Keywords:||Cancer||Study or Trial:||Multicentre Studies|
|Appears in Collections:||Health Service Research|
Show full item record
checked on Jan 27, 2023
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.