Preoperative multiparametric MRI of the prostate for the prediction of lymph node metastases in prostate cancer patients treated with extended pelvic lymph node dissection
- 289 Downloads
To assess the role of preoperative multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate in the prediction of nodal metastases in patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) and extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND).
We retrospectively analyzed 101 patients who underwent both preoperative mpMRI of the prostate and RP with ePLND at our institution. For each patient, complete preoperative clinical data and tumour characteristics at mpMRI were recorded. Final histopathologic stage was considered the standard of reference. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed.
Nodal metastases were found in 23/101 (22.8%) patients. At univariate analyses, all clinical and radiological parameters were significantly associated to nodal invasion (all p<0.03); tumour volume at MRI (mrV), tumour ADC and tumour T-stage at MRI (mrT) were the most accurate predictors (AUC = 0.93, 0.86 and 0.84, respectively). A multivariate model including PSA levels, primary Gleason grade, mrT and mrV showed high predictive accuracy (AUC = 0.956). Observed prevalence of nodal metastases was very low among tumours with mrT2 stage and mrV<1cc (1.8%).
Preoperative mpMRI of the prostate can predict nodal metastases in prostate cancer patients, potentially allowing a better selection of candidates to ePLND.
• Multiparametric-MRI of the prostate can predict nodal metastases in prostate cancer
• Tumour volume and stage at MRI are the most accurate predictors
• Prevalence of nodal metastases is low for T2-stage and <1cc tumours
• Preoperative mpMRI may allow a better selection of candidates to lymphadenectomy
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imaging Prostate cancer Tumour volume Lymph nodes Lymph node dissection
Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection
Lymph Node Staging
T-stage at MRI
Tumour Volume at MRI
The authors state that this work has not received any funding.
Compliance with ethical standards
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Francesco De Cobelli, M.D.
Conflict of interest
The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.
Statistics and biometry
Alessandro Ambrosi Ph.D. kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript, and is one of the authors.
Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.
Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.
• performed at one institution
- 4.Briganti A, Abdollah F, Nini A et al (2012) Performance characteristics of computed tomography in detecting lymph node metastases in contemporary patients with prostate cancer treated with extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Eur Urol 61:1132–1138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.11.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Van den Bergh L, Lerut E, Haustermans K et al (2015) Final analysis of a prospective trial on functional imaging for nodal staging in patients with prostate cancer at high risk for lymph node involvement. Urol Oncol 33:109.e23-109.e31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.11.008
- 8.Evangelista L, Guttilla A, Zattoni F et al (2013) Utility of choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography for lymph node involvement identification in intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 63:1040–1048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.09.039 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines).Google Scholar
- 12.Roach M, Marquez C, Yuo HS et al (1994) Predicting the risk of lymph node involvement using the pre-treatment prostate specific antigen and Gleason score in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 28:33–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(94)90138-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F et al (2012) Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: The essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol 61:480–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.10.044 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Dynamic Prostate Cancer Nomogram: Coefficients. https://www.mskcc.org/nomograms/prostate/pre-op/coefficients.
- 15.Gandaglia G, Fossati N, Zaffuto E et al (2017) Development and Internal Validation of a Novel Model to Identify the Candidates for Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Article in press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.049
- 19.Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach (2nd ed). Ecol Modell. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2003.11.004
- 23.Stamey TA, Freiha FS, McNeal JE et al (1993) Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer 71:933–938. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19930201)71:3+<933::AID-CNCR2820711408>3.0.CO;2-L PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.McNeal JE, Villers AA, Redwine EA et al (1990) Histologic differentiation, cancer volume, and pelvic lymph node metastasis in adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Cancer 66:1225–1233. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19900915)66:6<1225::AID-CNCR2820660624>3.0.CO;2-X CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 34.Abdollah F, Sun M, Thuret R et al (2010) Decreasing rate and extent of lymph node staging in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy may undermine the rate of diagnosis of lymph node metastases in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 58:882–892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.09.029 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar