Comparison of multiparametric and biparametric magnetic resonance imaging protocols for prostate cancer diagnosis by radiologists with different experience

Cover Image

Cite item

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging can detect clinically significant prostate cancer and diagnose extracapsular extension and cancer stage. A scanning protocol that includes only T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted images represents a viable alternative to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging provided that the high diagnostic accuracy of the test is maintained. In recent studies, biparametric and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated slight differences in the diagnostic accuracy in detecting prostate cancer.

AIM: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of biparametric and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using PI-RADS v2.1 with magnetic resonance imaging-guided multifocal biopsy as the gold standard.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study initially processed the medical records of 126 patients. The inclusion criteria were as follows: presence of PI-RADS 2.1 multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, clinical information on free and bound prostate-specific antigen blood levels, a multifocal prostate biopsy performed, and a time interval between magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy of no more than 14 days. Three investigators (radiologists with <2, 2–5, and >5 years of experience) independently evaluated biparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate for the presence of pathological foci. After 2 weeks, the researchers evaluated the multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging dataset of the prostate. Each lesion detected, starting from PI-RADS category 3, was compared with the result of a multifocal fusion biopsy. The biopsy result was presented as a sum of Gleason scores, and a Gleason score of ≥7 was considered clinically relevant. According to magnetic resonance imaging data, findings meeting PI-RADS criteria 4 and 5 were considered tumor foci.

RESULTS: The best values of sensitivity and specificity of foci detection on magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate gland were 62.5% and 74.6%, respectively. The highest diagnostic accuracy achieved was 70.1%. Magnetic resonance imaging had higher specificity rates for detecting prostatic foci when interpreted by radiologists with 2 years and >5 years of experience.

CONCLUSION: Both biparametric and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate demonstrated suboptimal diagnostic accuracy. The sensitivity and specificity of the method tended to improve with increasing experience of the radiologist. Biparametric protocols of prostate scanning have a definite economic advantage over multiparametric protocols because of the absence of contrast agents and consumables and a significant decrease in magnetic resonance scanner loading time; however, their use can lead to a decrease in the diagnostic accuracy of the method.

About the authors

Yuriy A. Vasilev

Moscow Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine

Email: npcmr@zdrav.mos.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0208-5218
SPIN-code: 4458-5608

MD, Cand. Sci. (Med)

Russian Federation, Moscow

Olga V. Omelyanskaya

Moscow Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine

Email: o.omelyanskaya@npcmr.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0245-4431
SPIN-code: 8948-6152
Russian Federation, Moscow

Anton V. Vladzymyrskyy

Moscow Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine

Email: npcmr@zdrav.mos.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2990-7736
SPIN-code: 3602-7120

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med), Professor

Russian Federation, Moscow

Pavel B. Gelezhe

Moscow Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine; Joint stock company “European Medical Center”

Author for correspondence.
Email: gelezhe.pavel@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1072-2202
SPIN-code: 4841-3234
Russian Federation, Moscow; Moscow

Roman V. Reshetnikov

Moscow Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine

Email: reshetnikov@fbb.msu.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9661-0254
SPIN-code: 8592-0558
Russian Federation, Moscow

Anna P. Gonchar

Moscow Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine

Email: a.gonchar@npcmr.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5161-6540
SPIN-code: 3513-9531
Russian Federation, Moscow

Ivan A. Blokhin

Moscow Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine

Email: i.blokhin@npcmr.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2681-9378
SPIN-code: 3306-1387
Russian Federation, Moscow

Iskander I. Abdullin

Moscow Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine

Email: iabdullin@emcmos.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1138-0822
SPIN-code: 6560-5219
Russian Federation, Moscow

Irina N. Kieva

Speransky Children’s Hospital

Email: kieva.irina@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4060-5966
SPIN-code: 2279-9141
Russian Federation, Moscow

References

  1. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 Update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol. 2019;76(3):340–351. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.0331
  2. Bjurlin MA, Carroll PR, Eggener S, et al. Update of the standard operating procedure on the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis, staging and management of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2020;203(4):706–712. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000617
  3. Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, et al. Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): A prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncology. 2019;20(1):100–109. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2
  4. Boesen L, Thomsen FB, Nørgaard N, et al. A predictive model based on biparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical parameters for improved risk assessment and selection of biopsy-naïve men for prostate biopsies. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2019;22(4):609–616. doi: 10.1038/s41391-019-0149-y
  5. Tamada T, Kido A, Yamamoto A, et al. Comparison of biparametric and multiparametric MRI for clinically significant prostate cancer detection with PI-RADS Version 2.1. J Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2021;53(1):283–291. doi: 10.1002/jmri.27283
  6. Wallström J, Geterud K, Kohestani K, et al. Bi- or multiparametric MRI in a sequential screening program for prostate cancer with PSA followed by MRI? Results from the Göteborg prostate cancer screening 2 trial. Eur Radiol. 2021;31(11):8692–8702. doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-07907-9
  7. Kuhl CK, Bruhn R, Krämer N, et al. Abbreviated biparametric prostate MR imaging in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen. Radiology. 2017;285(2):493–505. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017170129
  8. Abuladze LR, Semenov DS, Panina OV, Vasil AA. Optimized protocol of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate. Digital Diagnostics. 2022;3(3):166–177. doi: 10.17816/DD108484
  9. Schoots IG, Barentsz JO, Bittencourt LK, et al. PI-RADS committee position on MRI without contrast medium in biopsy-naive men with suspected prostate cancer: Narrative review. Am J Roentgenol. 2021;216(1):3–19. doi: 10.2214/AJR.20.24268
  10. Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966;50(3):125–128.
  11. Zawaideh JP, Sala E, Shaida N, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of biparametric versus multiparametric prostate MRI: Assessment of contrast benefit in clinical practice. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(7):4039–4049. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06782-0
  12. Kang Z, Min X, Weinreb J, et al. Abbreviated biparametric versus standard multiparametric MRI for diagnosis of prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Roentgenol. 2019;212(2):357–365. doi: 10.2214/AJR.18.20103
  13. Niu XK, Chen XH, Chen ZF, et al. Diagnostic performance of biparametric MRI for detection of prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Roentgenol. 2018;211(2):369–378. doi: 10.2214/AJR.17.18946
  14. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): A paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389(10071):815–822. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
  15. McDonald RJ, Levine D, Weinreb J, et al. Gadolinium retention: A research roadmap from the 2018 NIH/ACR/RSNA workshop on gadolinium chelates. Radiology. 2018;289(2):517–534. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018181151
  16. Ploussard G, Epstein JI, Montironi R, et al. The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2011;60(2):291–303. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.05.006
  17. Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64(6):876–892. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.049
  18. Campli ED, Pizzi DA, Seccia B, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of biparametric vs multiparametric MRI in clinically significant prostate cancer: Comparison between readers with different experience. Eur J Radiol. 2018;(101):17–23. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.01.028
  19. Gatti M, Faletti R, Calleris G, et al. Prostate cancer detection with biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) by readers with different experience: Performance and comparison with multiparametric (mpMRI). Abdominal Radiol (New York). 2019;44(5):1883–1893. doi: 10.1007/s00261-019-01934-3

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
2. Fig. 1. An example of a false-positive result of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a ― T2-weighted image in the axial plane: in the lateral posterior segment of the peripheral zone of the left lobe in the middle part of the prostate gland there is a focus of reduced signal corresponding to the zone of diffusion restriction; b is a map of the measured diffusion coefficient. This lesion was characterized by the physician as PI-RADS5. According to multifocal biopsy, prostate tissue without signs of tumor growth.

Download (214KB)
3. Fig. 2. An example of an increase in the PI-RADS category using dynamic contrast enhancement: a ― T2-weighted image in the axial plane: in the lateral posterior segment of the peripheral zone of the right lobe in the middle part of the prostate gland there is a focus of reduced signal corresponding to the zone of diffusion restriction; b - map of measured diffusion coefficient: this lesion was characterized by the physician as PI-RADS 3 using biMRI, but with dynamic contrast enhancement (c) the lesion shows early contrast enhancement, which allows it to be regarded as PI-RADS 4.

Download (301KB)

Copyright (c) 2023 Eco-Vector

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies