Assessment of Prospectively Assigned Likert Scores for Targeted Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Biopsies in Patients with Suspected Prostate Cancer

No AccessJournal of UrologyAdult Urology1 Jan 2016Assessment of Prospectively Assigned Likert Scores for Targeted Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Biopsies in Patients with Suspected Prostate Cancer Daniel N. Costa, Yair Lotan, Neil M. Rofsky, Claus Roehrborn, Alexander Liu, Brad Hornberger, Yin Xi, Franto Francis, and Ivan Pedrosa Daniel N. CostaDaniel N. Costa Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas , Yair LotanYair Lotan Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas , Neil M. RofskyNeil M. Rofsky Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas , Claus RoehrbornClaus Roehrborn Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas , Alexander LiuAlexander Liu Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas , Brad HornbergerBrad Hornberger Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas , Yin XiYin Xi Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas , Franto FrancisFranto Francis Department of Pathology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas , and Ivan PedrosaIvan Pedrosa Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.07.080AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: We assess the performance of prospectively assigned magnetic resonance imaging based Likert scale scores for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, and analyze the pre-biopsy imaging variables associated with increased cancer detection using targeted magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective review of prospectively generated data including men with abnormal multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (at least 1 Likert score 3 or greater lesion) who underwent subsequent targeted magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy, we determined the association between different imaging variables (Likert score, lesion size, lesion location, prostate volume, radiologist experience) and targeted biopsy positivity rate. We also compared the detection of clinically significant cancer according to Likert scale scores. Tumors with high volume (50% or more of any core) Gleason score 3+4 or any tumor with greater Gleason score were considered clinically significant. Each lesion served as the elementary unit for analysis. We used logistic regression for univariate and multivariate (stepwise selection) analysis to assess for an association between targeted biopsy positivity rate and each tested variable. The relationship between Likert scale and Gleason score was evaluated using the Spearman correlation coefficient. Results: A total of 161 men with 244 lesions met the study eligibility criteria. Targeted biopsies diagnosed cancer in 41% (66 of 161) of the men and 41% (99 of 244) of the lesions. The Likert score was the strongest predictor of targeted biopsy positivity (OR 3.7, p <0.0001). Other imaging findings associated with a higher targeted biopsy positivity rate included smaller prostate volume (OR 0.7, p <0.01), larger lesion size (OR 2.2, p <0.001) and anterior location (OR 2.0, p=0.01). On multiple logistic regression analysis Likert score, lesion size and prostate volume were significant predictors of targeted biopsy positivity. Higher Likert scores were also associated with increased detection of clinically significant tumors (p <0.0001). Conclusions: The Likert scale score used to convey the degree of suspicion on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging is the strongest predictor of targeted biopsy positivity and of the presence of clinically significant tumor. References 1 : Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol2014; 202: 343. Google Scholar 2 : MR imaging-transrectal US fusion for targeted prostate biopsies: implications for diagnosis and clinical management. Radiographics2015; 35: 696. Google Scholar 3 : Prostate Imaging and Reporting and Data System: Version 2, 2015. Reston, Virginia: American College of Radiology2015. Google Scholar 4 : Scoring systems used for the interpretation and reporting of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection, localization, and characterization: could standardization lead to improved utilization of imaging within the diagnostic pathway?. J Magn Reson Imaging2013; 37: 48. Google Scholar 5 : Prostate cancer localization using multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and Likert scales. Radiology2013; 269: 482. Google Scholar 6 : Characterization of prostate lesions as benign or malignant at multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of three scoring systems in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. Radiology2014; 272: 446. Google Scholar 7 : Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. Eur Urol2013; 64: 544. Google Scholar 8 College of American Pathologists: Protocol for the Examination of Specimens From Patients With Carcinoma of the Prostate Gland, June 2012. Available at http://www.cap.org/ShowProperty?nodePath=/UCMCon/Contribution Folders/WebContent/pdf/prostate-12protocol-3200.pdf. Accessed April 13, 2015. Google Scholar 9 : Outcomes of initially expectantly managed patients with low or intermediate risk screen-detected localized prostate cancer. BJU Int2012; 110: 1672. Google Scholar 10 : Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol2010; 28: 126. Google Scholar 11 : Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol2013; 64: 981. Google Scholar 12 : The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol2005; 173: 1938. Link, Google Scholar 13 : Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3?. J Clin Oncol2009; 27: 3459. Google Scholar 14 : Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol2011; 186: 1281. Link, Google Scholar 15 : Improving detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy. J Urol2014; 191: 1749. Link, Google Scholar 16 : Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Eur Urol2014; 65: 809. Google Scholar 17 : Validation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in a cohort of repeat biopsy patients. Eur Urol2012; 62: 986. Google Scholar 18 : Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion targeted biopsies to diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer in enlarged compared to smaller prostates. J Urol2015; 194: 669. Link, Google Scholar 19 : 3-Dimensional elastic registration system of prostate biopsy location by real-time 3-dimensional transrectal ultrasound guidance with magnetic resonance/transrectal ultrasound image fusion. J Urol2012; 187: 1080. Link, Google Scholar 20 : Real-time MRI-TRUS fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsies. Comput Aided Surg2008; 13: 255. Google Scholar 21 : Comparison of interreader reproducibility of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System and Likert scales for evaluation of multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol2013; 201: W612. Google Scholar 22 : Measurement of prostate-specific antigen in serum as a screening test for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med1991; 324: 1156. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar © 2016 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byLeyh-Bannurah S, Kachanov M, Beyersdorff D, Tian Z, Karakiewicz P, Tilki D, Fisch M, Maurer T, Graefen M and Budäus L (2019) Minimum Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsy Cores Needed for Prostate Cancer Detection: Multivariable Retrospective, Lesion Based Analyses of Patients Treated with Radical ProstatectomyJournal of Urology, VOL. 203, NO. 2, (299-303), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2020.Canvasser N, Kay F, Xi Y, Pinho D, Costa D, de Leon A, Khatri G, Leyendecker J, Yokoo T, Lay A, Kavoussi N, Koseoglu E, Cadeddu J and Pedrosa I (2017) Diagnostic Accuracy of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Identify Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma in cT1a Renal MassesJournal of Urology, VOL. 198, NO. 4, (780-786), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2017. Volume 195Issue 1January 2016Page: 80-87 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2016 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Keywordsmagnetic resonance imagingprostatic neoplasmsbiopsyearly detection of cancerrisk assessmentMetricsAuthor Information Daniel N. Costa Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas More articles by this author Yair Lotan Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas More articles by this author Neil M. Rofsky Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas More articles by this author Claus Roehrborn Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas More articles by this author Alexander Liu Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas More articles by this author Brad Hornberger Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas More articles by this author Yin Xi Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas More articles by this author Franto Francis Department of Pathology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas More articles by this author Ivan Pedrosa Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...