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
  • [1] The grade of individual prostate cancer lesions predicted by magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography
    Erik Nilsson
    Kristina Sandgren
    Josefine Grefve
    Joakim Jonsson
    Jan Axelsson
    Angsana Keeratijarut Lindberg
    Karin Söderkvist
    Camilla Thellenberg Karlsson
    Anders Widmark
    Lennart Blomqvist
    Sara Strandberg
    Katrine Riklund
    Anders Bergh
    Tufve Nyholm
    Communications Medicine, 3
  • [2] Imaging prostate cancer: An update on positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging
    Bouchelouche K.
    Turkbey B.
    Choyke P.
    Capala J.
    Current Urology Reports, 2010, 11 (3) : 180 - 190
  • [3] Positron emission tomography with computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging for primary staging of prostate cancer
    Hasa, Ergela
    Langbein, Thomas
    Eiber, Matthias
    Knorr, Karina
    RADIOLOGE, 2021, 61 (09): : 818 - 824
  • [4] Visualization with positron emission tomography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography/computed tomography, and positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging
    Seemann, MD
    Gaa, J
    CIRCULATION, 2005, 112 (21) : E329 - E330
  • [5] Imaging in laryngeal cancer: computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography
    Zinreich, SJ
    OTOLARYNGOLOGIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2002, 35 (05) : 971 - +
  • [6] Positron emission tomography imaging of prostate cancer
    Hao Hong
    Yin Zhang
    Jiangtao Sun
    Weibo Cai
    Amino Acids, 2010, 39 : 11 - 27
  • [7] Imaging of Prostate Cancer With Positron Emission Tomography
    Zimmerman, Michael E.
    Meyer, Alexa R.
    Rowe, Steven P.
    Gorin, Michael A.
    CLINICAL ADVANCES IN HEMATOLOGY & ONCOLOGY, 2019, 17 (08) : 455 - 463
  • [8] Positron emission tomography imaging of prostate cancer
    Hong, Hao
    Zhang, Yin
    Sun, Jiangtao
    Cai, Weibo
    AMINO ACIDS, 2010, 39 (01) : 11 - 27
  • [9] Imaging in prostate cancer with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and gallium positron emission tomography-computed tomography: 'the real deal'?
    Lawrentschuk, Nathan
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2015, 115 : 1 - 2
  • [10] Diagnostic imaging for pancreatic cancer - Computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography
    Saisho, H
    Yamaguchi, T
    PANCREAS, 2004, 28 (03) : 273 - 278