Cargando…

Accuracy of fractal analysis and PI-RADS assessment of prostate magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of cancer grade groups: a clinical validation study

OBJECTIVES: Multiparametric MRI with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) assessment is sensitive but not specific for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer. This study validates the diagnostic accuracy of the recently suggested fractal dimension (FD) of perfusion for dete...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Michallek, Florian, Huisman, Henkjan, Hamm, Bernd, Elezkurtaj, Sefer, Maxeiner, Andreas, Dewey, Marc
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8921078/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34921618
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08358-y
_version_ 1784669259220123648
author Michallek, Florian
Huisman, Henkjan
Hamm, Bernd
Elezkurtaj, Sefer
Maxeiner, Andreas
Dewey, Marc
author_facet Michallek, Florian
Huisman, Henkjan
Hamm, Bernd
Elezkurtaj, Sefer
Maxeiner, Andreas
Dewey, Marc
author_sort Michallek, Florian
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Multiparametric MRI with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) assessment is sensitive but not specific for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer. This study validates the diagnostic accuracy of the recently suggested fractal dimension (FD) of perfusion for detecting clinically significant cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Routine clinical MR imaging data, acquired at 3 T without an endorectal coil including dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences, of 72 prostate cancer foci in 64 patients were analyzed. In-bore MRI-guided biopsy with International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading served as reference standard. Previously established FD cutoffs for predicting tumor grade were compared to measurements of the apparent diffusion coefficient (25th percentile, ADC(25)) and PI-RADS assessment with and without inclusion of the FD as separate criterion. RESULTS: Fractal analysis allowed prediction of ISUP grade groups 1 to 4 but not 5, with high agreement to the reference standard (κ(FD) = 0.88 [CI: 0.79–0.98]). Integrating fractal analysis into PI-RADS allowed a strong improvement in specificity and overall accuracy while maintaining high sensitivity for significant cancer detection (ISUP > 1; PI-RADS alone: sensitivity = 96%, specificity = 20%, area under the receiver operating curve [AUC] = 0.65; versus PI-RADS with fractal analysis: sensitivity = 95%, specificity = 88%, AUC = 0.92, p < 0.001). ADC(25) only differentiated low-grade group 1 from pooled higher-grade groups 2–5 (κ(ADC) = 0.36 [CI: 0.12–0.59]). Importantly, fractal analysis was significantly more reliable than ADC(25) in predicting non-significant and clinically significant cancer (AUC(FD) = 0.96 versus AUC(ADC) = 0.75, p < 0.001). Diagnostic accuracy was not significantly affected by zone location. CONCLUSIONS: Fractal analysis is accurate in noninvasively predicting tumor grades in prostate cancer and adds independent information when implemented into PI-RADS assessment. This opens the opportunity to individually adjust biopsy priority and method in individual patients. KEY POINTS: • Fractal analysis of perfusion is accurate in noninvasively predicting tumor grades in prostate cancer using dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences (κ(FD) = 0.88). • Including the fractal dimension into PI-RADS as a separate criterion improved specificity (from 20 to 88%) and overall accuracy (AUC from 0.86 to 0.96) while maintaining high sensitivity (96% versus 95%) for predicting clinically significant cancer. • Fractal analysis was significantly more reliable than ADC(25) in predicting clinically significant cancer (AUC(FD) = 0.96 versus AUC(ADC) = 0.75).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8921078
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89210782022-03-17 Accuracy of fractal analysis and PI-RADS assessment of prostate magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of cancer grade groups: a clinical validation study Michallek, Florian Huisman, Henkjan Hamm, Bernd Elezkurtaj, Sefer Maxeiner, Andreas Dewey, Marc Eur Radiol Urogenital OBJECTIVES: Multiparametric MRI with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) assessment is sensitive but not specific for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer. This study validates the diagnostic accuracy of the recently suggested fractal dimension (FD) of perfusion for detecting clinically significant cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Routine clinical MR imaging data, acquired at 3 T without an endorectal coil including dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences, of 72 prostate cancer foci in 64 patients were analyzed. In-bore MRI-guided biopsy with International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading served as reference standard. Previously established FD cutoffs for predicting tumor grade were compared to measurements of the apparent diffusion coefficient (25th percentile, ADC(25)) and PI-RADS assessment with and without inclusion of the FD as separate criterion. RESULTS: Fractal analysis allowed prediction of ISUP grade groups 1 to 4 but not 5, with high agreement to the reference standard (κ(FD) = 0.88 [CI: 0.79–0.98]). Integrating fractal analysis into PI-RADS allowed a strong improvement in specificity and overall accuracy while maintaining high sensitivity for significant cancer detection (ISUP > 1; PI-RADS alone: sensitivity = 96%, specificity = 20%, area under the receiver operating curve [AUC] = 0.65; versus PI-RADS with fractal analysis: sensitivity = 95%, specificity = 88%, AUC = 0.92, p < 0.001). ADC(25) only differentiated low-grade group 1 from pooled higher-grade groups 2–5 (κ(ADC) = 0.36 [CI: 0.12–0.59]). Importantly, fractal analysis was significantly more reliable than ADC(25) in predicting non-significant and clinically significant cancer (AUC(FD) = 0.96 versus AUC(ADC) = 0.75, p < 0.001). Diagnostic accuracy was not significantly affected by zone location. CONCLUSIONS: Fractal analysis is accurate in noninvasively predicting tumor grades in prostate cancer and adds independent information when implemented into PI-RADS assessment. This opens the opportunity to individually adjust biopsy priority and method in individual patients. KEY POINTS: • Fractal analysis of perfusion is accurate in noninvasively predicting tumor grades in prostate cancer using dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences (κ(FD) = 0.88). • Including the fractal dimension into PI-RADS as a separate criterion improved specificity (from 20 to 88%) and overall accuracy (AUC from 0.86 to 0.96) while maintaining high sensitivity (96% versus 95%) for predicting clinically significant cancer. • Fractal analysis was significantly more reliable than ADC(25) in predicting clinically significant cancer (AUC(FD) = 0.96 versus AUC(ADC) = 0.75). Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-12-18 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8921078/ /pubmed/34921618 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08358-y Text en © The Author(s) 2021, corrected publication 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Urogenital
Michallek, Florian
Huisman, Henkjan
Hamm, Bernd
Elezkurtaj, Sefer
Maxeiner, Andreas
Dewey, Marc
Accuracy of fractal analysis and PI-RADS assessment of prostate magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of cancer grade groups: a clinical validation study
title Accuracy of fractal analysis and PI-RADS assessment of prostate magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of cancer grade groups: a clinical validation study
title_full Accuracy of fractal analysis and PI-RADS assessment of prostate magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of cancer grade groups: a clinical validation study
title_fullStr Accuracy of fractal analysis and PI-RADS assessment of prostate magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of cancer grade groups: a clinical validation study
title_full_unstemmed Accuracy of fractal analysis and PI-RADS assessment of prostate magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of cancer grade groups: a clinical validation study
title_short Accuracy of fractal analysis and PI-RADS assessment of prostate magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of cancer grade groups: a clinical validation study
title_sort accuracy of fractal analysis and pi-rads assessment of prostate magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of cancer grade groups: a clinical validation study
topic Urogenital
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8921078/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34921618
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08358-y
work_keys_str_mv AT michallekflorian accuracyoffractalanalysisandpiradsassessmentofprostatemagneticresonanceimagingforpredictionofcancergradegroupsaclinicalvalidationstudy
AT huismanhenkjan accuracyoffractalanalysisandpiradsassessmentofprostatemagneticresonanceimagingforpredictionofcancergradegroupsaclinicalvalidationstudy
AT hammbernd accuracyoffractalanalysisandpiradsassessmentofprostatemagneticresonanceimagingforpredictionofcancergradegroupsaclinicalvalidationstudy
AT elezkurtajsefer accuracyoffractalanalysisandpiradsassessmentofprostatemagneticresonanceimagingforpredictionofcancergradegroupsaclinicalvalidationstudy
AT maxeinerandreas accuracyoffractalanalysisandpiradsassessmentofprostatemagneticresonanceimagingforpredictionofcancergradegroupsaclinicalvalidationstudy
AT deweymarc accuracyoffractalanalysisandpiradsassessmentofprostatemagneticresonanceimagingforpredictionofcancergradegroupsaclinicalvalidationstudy