The grade of individual prostate cancer lesions predicted by magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography

被引:3
|
作者
Nilsson, Erik [1 ]
Sandgren, Kristina [1 ]
Grefve, Josefine [1 ]
Jonsson, Joakim [1 ]
Axelsson, Jan [1 ]
Lindberg, Angsana Keeratijarut [1 ]
Soderkvist, Karin [2 ]
Karlsson, Camilla Thellenberg [2 ]
Widmark, Anders [2 ]
Blomqvist, Lennart [3 ]
Strandberg, Sara [4 ]
Riklund, Katrine [4 ]
Bergh, Anders [5 ]
Nyholm, Tufve [1 ]
机构
[1] Umea Univ, Dept Radiat Sci, Radiat Phys, Umea, Sweden
[2] Umea Univ, Dept Radiat Sci, Oncol, Umea, Sweden
[3] Karolinska Inst, Dept Mol Med & Surg, Solna, Sweden
[4] Umea Univ, Dept Radiat Sci, Diagnost Radiol, Umea, Sweden
[5] Umea Univ, Dept Med Biosci, Pathol, Umea, Sweden
来源
COMMUNICATIONS MEDICINE | 2023年 / 3卷 / 01期
关键词
CONTRAST-ENHANCED MRI; GLEASON SCORE; MEMBRANE ANTIGEN; INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY; RISK STRATIFICATION; TUMOR ANGIOGENESIS; ADENOCARCINOMA; INTERMEDIATE; VARIABILITY; CRIBRIFORM;
D O I
10.1038/s43856-023-00394-7
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
Background Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) are widely used for the management of prostate cancer (PCa). However, how these modalities complement each other in PCa risk stratification is still largely unknown. We aim to provide insights into the potential of mpMRI and PET for PCa risk stratification. Methods We analyzed data from 55 consecutive patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen and biopsy-proven PCa enrolled in a prospective study between December 2016 and December 2019. [Ga-68]PSMA-11 PET (PSMA-PET), [C-11]Acetate PET (Acetate-PET) and mpMRI were co-registered with whole-mount histopathology. Lower- and higher-grade lesions were defined by International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade groups (IGG). We used PET and mpMRI data to differentiate between grades in two cases: IGG 3 vs. IGG 2 (case 1) and IGG >= 3 vs. IGG <= 2 (case 2). The performance was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results We find that the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) for PSMA-PET achieves the highest area under the ROC curve (AUC), with AUCs of 0.72 (case 1) and 0.79 (case 2). Combining the volume transfer constant, apparent diffusion coefficient and T2-weighted images (each normalized to non-malignant prostatic tissue) results in AUCs of 0.70 (case 1) and 0.70 (case 2). Adding PSMA-SUVmax increases the AUCs by 0.09 (p < 0.01) and 0.12 (p < 0.01), respectively. Conclusions By co-registering whole-mount histopathology and in-vivo imaging we show that mpMRI and PET can distinguish between lower- and higher-grade prostate cancer, using partially discriminative cut-off values. Plain language summary Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Positron Emission Tomography (PET) are two medical imaging methods commonly used to image prostate cancers. However, the relationship between images obtained with these methods and prostate cancer aggressiveness is not well understood. Here, we investigate whether MRI and PET can differentiate between lower- and higher-grade prostate tumors, where grade is an indicator of how aggressive the disease is likely to be. We find that the characteristics of prostate cancer tumors as seen on MRI and PET scans can help to predict tumor grade. This means that these imaging methods may be helpful when clinicians are predicting patient prognosis and deciding on appropriate treatments. However, further validation is necessary before these approaches are widely implemented for this purpose.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Gleason Grade Group 4 prostate biopsy with no cancer seen on final pathology in the magnetic resonance imaging and Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen-Positron Emission Tomography era
    Mookerji, Nikhile
    Mittal, Rohan
    Hui, Amaris
    Pfanner, Tyler
    Broomfield, Stacey
    Dean, Luke
    Adam, Benjamin
    Fung, Christopher
    Tamm, Alexander
    Kinnaird, Adam
    IJU CASE REPORTS, 2023, 6 (06) : 337 - 340
  • [42] Positron-emission tomography in imaging and staging prostate cancer
    Farsad, M.
    Schiavina, R.
    Franceschelli, A.
    Sanguedolce, F.
    Castellucci, P.
    Bertaccini, A.
    Brunocilla, E.
    Manferrari, F.
    Concetti, S.
    Garofalo, M.
    Rocca, C.
    Borghesi, M.
    Franchi, R.
    Fanti, S.
    Nanni, C.
    Martorana, G.
    CANCER BIOMARKERS, 2008, 4 (4-5) : 277 - 284
  • [43] Utility of positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance imaging in musculoskeletal imaging
    Chaudhry, Ammar A.
    Gul, Maryam
    Gould, Elaine
    Teng, Mathew
    Baker, Kevin
    Matthews, Robert
    WORLD JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2016, 8 (03): : 268 - 274
  • [44] Imaging of transplanted islets by positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasonography
    Sakata, Naoaki
    Yoshimatsu, Gumpei
    Tsuchiya, Haruyuki
    Aoki, Takeshi
    Mizuma, Masamichi
    Motoi, Fuyuhiko
    Katayose, Yu
    Kodama, Tetsuya
    Egawa, Shinichi
    Unno, Michiaki
    ISLETS, 2013, 5 (05) : 179 - 187
  • [45] Positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging: The next generation of multimodality imaging?
    Pichler, Bernd J.
    Wehrl, Hans F.
    Kolb, Armin
    Judenhofer, Martin S.
    SEMINARS IN NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2008, 38 (03) : 199 - 208
  • [46] Imaging the living human brain: Magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography
    Volkow, ND
    Rosen, B
    Farde, L
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 1997, 94 (07) : 2787 - 2788
  • [47] Integrating magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography results into prostate cancer treatment decision making
    Bratt, Ola
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2022, 129 (01) : 3 - 4
  • [48] Simultaneous positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for the detection and characterisation of liver lesions in patients with colorectal cancer: A pictorial review
    Yeoh, Edward
    Miles, Ken
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL IMAGING AND RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2019, 63 (05) : 624 - 629
  • [49] Discrepancies between positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in a cohort of oncological patients
    Oh, Geon
    O'Mahoney, Eoin
    Jeavons, Susanne
    Law, Phillip
    Ngai, Stanley
    McGill, George
    Yu, Chris
    Miles, Kenneth A.
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL IMAGING AND RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2020, 64 (02) : 204 - 210
  • [50] The Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in the Primary Staging of Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Literature
    Abrams-Pompe, Raisa S.
    Fanti, Stefano
    Schoots, Ivo G.
    Moore, Caroline M.
    Turkbey, Baris
    Vickers, Andrew J.
    Walz, Jochen
    Steuber, Thomas
    Eastham, James A.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY ONCOLOGY, 2021, 4 (03): : 370 - 395