Tom 6, Nr 4 (2021)
Praca badawcza (oryginalna)
Opublikowany online: 2021-06-08

dostęp otwarty

Wyświetlenia strony 184
Wyświetlenia/pobrania artykułu 111
Pobierz cytowanie

Eksport do Mediów Społecznościowych

Eksport do Mediów Społecznościowych

MRI utility in predicting extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy

Natalia Majchrzak1, Piotr Cieśliński1, Tomasz Milecki2, Maciej Głyda13, Katarzyna Karmelita-Katulska4
Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Onkologicznego Nowotwory 2021;6(4):261-265.


Introduction. The study aimed to evaluate the performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and the Martini model to predict extraprostatic extension (EPE) and biochemical recurrence (BCR) of prostate cancer (PCa).

Materials and methods. 61 patients underwent a radical laparoscopic prostatectomy. The preoperative risk of EPE was determined using mpMRI and the Martini model.

Results. MpMRI predicts the presence of EPE of PCa with a sensitivity and specificity of 47.4% and 85.7%, respectively (AUC 0.66, 95% CI: 0.51–0.82, p = 0.046). The Martini model’s sensitivity was higher, but the specificity was lower than that of mpMRI and was 84.2% and 66.7%, respectively (AUC 0.78, 95% CI: 0.66–0.89, p < 0.001). Univariate and multivariate Cox analysis indicated that EPE in mpMRI (HR 6.6, 95% CI: 1.8–24.1), and the presence of positive surgical margins (PSM) (HR 7.1, 95% CI: 1.9–26.7) are independent factors increasing the probability of BCR.

Conclusions. MpMRI and Martini model are valuable tools in local staging of PCa, managing and predicting the oncological treatment outcomes of patients with PCa.

Artykuł dostępny w formacie PDF

Pokaż PDF (angielski) Pobierz plik PDF


  1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015; 136(5): E359–E386.
  2. Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines. 2020 Edition. [Internet]. Vol. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam 2020. European Association of Urology Guidelines Office; 2020.
  3. Pound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, et al. Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 1999; 281(17): 1591–1597.
  4. Van den Broeck T, van den Bergh RCN, Arfi N, et al. Prognostic Value of Biochemical Recurrence Following Treatment with Curative Intent for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol. 2019; 75(6): 967–987.
  5. Suardi N, Ficarra V, Willemsen P, et al. Long-term biochemical recurrence rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: analysis of a single-center series of patients with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Urology. 2012; 79(1): 133–138.
  6. Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016; 69(1): 16–40.
  7. Somford DM, Hamoen EH, Fütterer JJ, et al. The predictive value of endorectal 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for extraprostatic extension in patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2013; 190(5): 1728–1734.
  8. de Rooij M, Hamoen EHJ, Witjes JA, et al. Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Local Staging of Prostate Cancer: A Diagnostic Meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2016; 70(2): 233–245.
  9. Gandaglia G, Fossati N, Zaffuto E, et al. Development and Internal Validation of a Novel Model to Identify the Candidates for Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2017; 72(4): 632–640.
  10. Walz J, Epstein JI, Ganzer R, et al. A Critical Analysis of the Current Knowledge of Surgical Anatomy of the Prostate Related to Optimisation of Cancer Control and Preservation of Continence and Erection in Candidates for Radical Prostatectomy: An Update. Eur Urol. 2016; 70(2): 301–311.
  11. Martini A, Gupta A, Lewis SC, et al. Development and internal validation of a side-specific, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-based nomogram for the prediction of extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2018; 122(6): 1025–1033.
  12. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al. Grading Committee. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016; 40(2): 244–252.
  13. Eichler K, Hempel S, Wilby J, et al. Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J Urol. 2006; 175(5): 1605–1612.
  14. Shariat, SF, Roehrborn, CG Using biopsy to detect prostate cancer. Rev Urol. 2008; 10: 262–280.
  15. Gandaglia G, Ploussard G, Valerio M, et al. Prognostic Implications of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Concomitant Systematic Biopsy in Predicting Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy in Prostate Cancer Patients Diagnosed with Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020; 3(6): 739–747.
  16. Manceau C, Beauval JB, Lesourd M, et al. MRI Characteristics Accurately Predict Biochemical Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy. J Clin Med. 2020; 9(12).
  17. Kozikowski M, Malewski W, Michalak W, et al. Clinical utility of MRI in the decision-making process before radical prostatectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2019; 14(1): e0210194.

Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Onkologicznego Nowotwory