Impact of the interval period after prostate systematic biopsy on MRI interpretation for prostate cancer
10.3760/cma.j.cn112149-20231219-00481
- VernacularTitle:前列腺系统穿刺活检后间隔时间对前列腺癌MRI评估的影响
- Author:
Baichuan LIU
1
;
Xu BAI
;
Xiaohui DING
;
Yun ZHANG
;
Zhe DONG
;
Honghao XU
;
Xiaojing ZHANG
;
Mengqiu CUI
;
Jian ZHAO
;
Shaopeng ZHOU
;
Yuwei HAO
;
Huiyi YE
;
Haiyi WANG
Author Information
1. 解放军总医院第一医学中心放射诊断科，北京 100853
- Keywords:
Prostate neoplasms;
Magnetic resonance imaging;
Extraprostatic extension;
Biopsy;
Hemorrhage
- From:
Chinese Journal of Radiology
2024;58(4):401-408
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the impact of the interval period between biopsy and MR examination on tumor detection and extraprostatic extension (EPE) assessment for prostate cancer (PCa) using multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI).Methods:The study was cross-sectional and retrospectively included 130 patients with PCa who underwent RP and preoperative systematic biopsies followed by mpMRI between January 2021 and December 2022 in the First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to interval following biopsy (group A,<3 weeks, 31 cases; group B, 3-6 weeks, 67 cases; group C,>6 weeks, 32 cases). The percentages of hemorrhage volume in the total prostate were drawn on T 1WI and calculated. The junior, senior and expert radiologists independently localized the index lesions and calculated the accuracy for tumor detection, in addition to assessing the probabilities of EPE according to EPE grade. The correlation between the hemorrhage extent and interval was analyzed using the Spearman correlation coefficient. The accuracy for tumor detection was compared using χ2 test among groups. The diagnostic performance of the radiologists for EPE prediction was assessed using the receiver operating characteristic curve, and the differences between the corresponding area under the curve (AUC) were compared using the DeLong test. Results:The percentage of hemorrhage was correlated with the interval between biopsy and MR examination ( r=-0.325, P<0.001). The detection accuracy of junior radiologist was 83.9% (26/31), 76.1% (51/67), and 78.1% (25/32) in group A, B and C, respectively; no differences were observed in the detection accuracy among three groups ( χ2=0.76, P=0.685). The detection accuracy of senior radiologist was 83.9% (26/31), 80.6% (54/67), and 71.9% (23/32) in 3 groups with no differences ( χ2=1.53, P=0.464). The detection accuracy of expert radiologist was 80.6% (25/31), 77.6% (52/67), and 93.8% (30/32) with no differences ( χ2=3.95, P=0.139). The AUC (95% CI) for predicting EPE were 0.830 (0.652-0.940), 0.704 (0.580-0.809), 0.800 (0.621-0.920) in the group A, B and C for junior radiologist; 0.876 (0.708-0.966), 0.768 (0.659-0.863), 0.896 (0.736-0.975) for senior radiologist; and 0.866 (0.695-0.961), 0.813 (0.699-0.895), 0.852 (0.682-0.952) for expert radiologist, respectively. No differences were observed among the subgroups in each radiologist ( P>0.05). Conclusion:The interval period does not significantly affect the detection accuracy and EPE assessment of PCa using mpMRI. There is probably no necessity for prolonged intervals following systematic biopsy to preserve the clarity of MRI interpretation for PCa.
