What Are We Missing? False-Negative Cancers at Multiparametric MR Imaging of the Prostate.

Citation data:

Radiology, ISSN: 1527-1315, Vol: 286, Issue: 1, Page: 186-195

Publication Year:
2018
Usage 8
Abstract Views 8
Captures 18
Readers 18
Social Media 35
Tweets 35
Citations 19
Citation Indexes 19
Repository URL:
https://hsrc.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/smhs_rad_facpubs/277; https://hsrc.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/smhs_rad_facpubs/290
PMID:
29053402
DOI:
10.1148/radiol.2017152877
Author(s):
Borofsky, Samuel; George, Arvin K; Gaur, Sonia; Bernardo, Marcelino; Greer, Matthew D; Mertan, Francesca V; Taffel, Myles; Moreno, Vanesa; Merino, Maria J; Wood, Bradford J; Pinto, Peter A; Choyke, Peter L; Turkbey, Baris Show More Hide
Publisher(s):
Radiological Society of North America (RSNA); Radiological Society of North America
Tags:
Medicine; Radiology
Most Recent Tweet View All Tweets
article description
Purpose To characterize clinically important prostate cancers missed at multiparametric (MP) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. Materials and Methods The local institutional review board approved this HIPAA-compliant retrospective single-center study, which included 100 consecutive patients who had undergone MP MR imaging and subsequent radical prostatectomy. A genitourinary pathologist blinded to MP MR findings outlined prostate cancers on whole-mount pathology slices. Two readers correlated mapped lesions with reports of prospectively read MP MR images. Readers were blinded to histopathology results during prospective reading. At histopathologic examination, 80 clinically unimportant lesions (<5 mm; Gleason score, 3+3) were excluded. The same two readers, who were not blinded to histopathologic findings, retrospectively reviewed cancers missed at MP MR imaging and assigned a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 score to better understand false-negative lesion characteristics. Descriptive statistics were used to define patient characteristics, including age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, PSA density, race, digital rectal examination results, and biopsy results before MR imaging. Student t test was used to determine any demographic differences between patients with false-negative MP MR imaging findings and those with correct prospective identification of all lesions. Results Of the 162 lesions, 136 (84%) were correctly identified with MP MR imaging. Size of eight lesions was underestimated. Among the 26 (16%) lesions missed at MP MR imaging, Gleason score was 3+4 in 17 (65%), 4+3 in one (4%), 4+4 in seven (27%), and 4+5 in one (4%). Retrospective PI-RADS version 2 scores were assigned (PI-RADS 1, n = 8; PI-RADS 2, n = 7; PI-RADS 3, n = 6; and PI-RADS 4, n = 5). On a per-patient basis, MP MR imaging depicted clinically important prostate cancer in 99 of 100 patients. At least one clinically important tumor was missed in 26 (26%) patients, and lesion size was underestimated in eight (8%). Conclusion Clinically important lesions can be missed or their size can be underestimated at MP MR imaging. Of missed lesions, 58% were not seen or were characterized as benign findings at second-look analysis. Recognition of the limitations of MP MR imaging is important, and new approaches to reduce this false-negative rate are needed. RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.