Cargando…
Effect of Preoperative Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging on Oncologic and Functional Outcomes Following Radical Prostatectomy
BACKGROUND: Advancements in imaging technology have been associated with changes to operative planning in treatment of localized prostate cancer. The impact of these changes on postoperative outcomes is understudied. OBJECTIVE: To compare oncologic and functional outcomes between men who had compute...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9806697/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36601046 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2022.11.018 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Advancements in imaging technology have been associated with changes to operative planning in treatment of localized prostate cancer. The impact of these changes on postoperative outcomes is understudied. OBJECTIVE: To compare oncologic and functional outcomes between men who had computed tomography (CT) and those who had multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) prior to undergoing radical prostatectomy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this retrospective cohort study, we identified all men who underwent radical prostatectomy (n = 1259) for localized prostate cancer at our institution between 2009 and 2016. Of these, 917 underwent preoperative CT and 342 mpMRI. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Biochemical recurrence-free survival, positive margin status, postoperative complications, and 1-yr postprostatectomy functional scores (using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite [EPIC-26] questionnaire) were compared between those who underwent preoperative CT and those who underwent mpMRI using propensity score weighted Cox proportional hazard regression, logistic regression, and linear regression models. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Baseline and 1-yr follow-up EPIC-26 data were available for 449 (36%) and 685 (54%) patients, respectively. After propensity score weighting, no differences in EPIC-26 functional domains were observed between the imaging groups at 1-yr follow-up. Positive surgical margin rates (odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77–1.38, p = 0.8) and biochemical recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio 1.21, 95% CI 0.84–1.74, p = 0.3) were not significantly different between groups. Early and late postoperative complications occurred in 219 and 113 cases, respectively, and were not different between imaging groups. Our study is limited by a potential selection bias from the lack of functional scores for some patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-center study of men with localized prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy, preoperative mpMRI had minimal impact on functional outcomes and oncologic control compared with conventional imaging. These findings challenge the assumptions that preoperative mpMRI improves operative planning and perioperative outcomes. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we assessed whether the type of prostate imaging performed prior to surgery for localized prostate cancer impacted outcomes. We found that urinary and sexual function, cancer control, and postoperative complications were similar regardless of whether magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography was utilized prior to surgery. |
---|