PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING IN DIAGNOSING EXTRAPROSTATIC EXTENSION OF PROSTATE CANCER
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objectives: To preliminarily assess the effectiveness of the Extraprostatic Extension (EPE) grading system on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in predicting the extension of prostate cancer, in correlation with postoperative histopathological findings. Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted on 45 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy at Vietnam National Cancer Hospital, between March 2024 and January 2025. All patients received preoperative multiparametric MRI. MRI images were analyzed using the EPE grading system. Postoperative pathological results were used as the reference standard. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 26.0. Results: EPE was found in 48.9% of patients. The EPE rate increased with higher EPE grades: 0% in grade 0, 60% in grade 2, and 100% in grade 3. The EPE grading system demonstrated high diagnostic performance, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.897. The optimal cut-off point was identified at a grade ≥ 2, with a sensitivity of 86.3% and a specificity of 82.6%. Conclusion: The EPE grading system on prostate MRI is a reliable and systematic tool for preoperative assessment of EPE in prostate cancer.
Keywords
Prostate cancer, Extraprostatic extension, Magnetic resonance imaging, EPE grading
Article Details
References
2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022 Jan; 72(1):7-33. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21708. Epub 2022 Jan 12. PMID: 35020204.
3. Park CK, Chung YS, Choi YD, et al. Revisiting EPE based on invasion depth and number for new algorithm for substaging of pT3a prostate cancer. Scientific reports. Jul 6 2021; 11(1):13952.
4. Bostwick DG, Cheng L. Urologic surgical pathology. Elsevier Health Sciences. 2008.
5. Wang X, Wu Y, Guo J, et al. Intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy improves patients’postoperative continence recovery and erectile function: A pooled analysis based on available literatures. 2018; 97(29):e11297.
6. Loeb S, Smith ND, Roehl KA, et al. Intermediate-term potency, continence, and survival outcomes of radical prostatectomy for clinically high-risk or locally advanced prostate cancer. 2007; 69(6):1170-1175.
7. Shieh AC, Guler E, Ojili V, et al. Extraprostatic extension in prostate cancer: Primer for radiologists. 2020; 45:4040-4051.
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. European Urology. 2016/08/01/ 2016; 70(2):233-245.
9. Mehralivand S, Shih JH, Harmon S, et al. A grading system for the assessment of risk of extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer at multiparametric MRI. Radiology. Mar 2019; 290(3):709-719.
10. Eurboonyanun K, Pisuchpen N, O'Shea A, et al. The absolute tumor-capsule contact length in the diagnosis of extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer. Abdominal Radiology (New York). Aug 2021; 46(8):4014-4024.