IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0227031.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of gadolinium in magnetic resonance imaging for early prostate cancer diagnosis: A diagnostic accuracy study

Author

Listed:
  • Ilinca Cosma
  • Cornelia Tennstedt-Schenk
  • Sven Winzler
  • Marios Nikos Psychogios
  • Alexander Pfeil
  • Ulf Teichgraeber
  • Ansgar Malich
  • Ismini Papageorgiou

Abstract

Objective: Prostate lesions detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) are classified for their malignant potential according to the Prostate Imaging-Reporting And Data System (PI-RADS™2). In this study, we evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the mpMRI with and without gadolinium, with emphasis on the added diagnostic value of the dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE). Materials and methods: The study was retrospective for 286 prostate lesions / 213 eligible patients, n = 116/170, and 49/59% malignant for the peripheral (Pz) and transitional zone (Tz), respectively. A stereotactic MRI-guided prostate biopsy served as the histological ground truth. All patients received a mpMRI with DCE. The influence of DCE in the prediction of malignancy was analyzed by blinded assessment of the imaging protocol without DCE and the DCE separately. Results: Significant (CSPca) and insignificant (IPca) prostate cancers were evaluated separately to enhance the potential effects of the DCE in the detection of CSPca. The Receiver Operating Characteristics Area Under Curve (ROC-AUC), sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Spe) of PIRADS-without-DCE in the Pz was 0.70/0.47/0.86 for all cancers (IPca and CSPca merged) and 0.73/0.54/0.82 for CSPca. PIRADS-with-DCE for the same patients showed ROC-AUC/Se/Spe of 0.70/0.49/0.86 for all Pz cancers and 0.69/0.54/0.81 for CSPca in the Pz, respectively, p>0.05 chi-squared test. Similar results for the Tz, AUC/Se/Spe for PIRADS-without-DCE was 0.75/0.61/0.79 all cancers and 0.67/0.54/0.71 for CSPca, not influenced by DCE (0.66/0.47/0.81 for all Tz cancers and 0.61/0.39/0.75 for CSPca in Tz). The added Se and Spe of DCE for the detection of CSPca was 88/34% and 78/33% in the Pz and Tz, respectively. Conclusion: DCE showed no significant added diagnostic value and lower specificity for the prediction of CSPca compared to the non-enhanced sequences. Our results support that gadolinium might be omitted without mitigating the diagnostic accuracy of the mpMRI for prostate cancer.

Suggested Citation

  • Ilinca Cosma & Cornelia Tennstedt-Schenk & Sven Winzler & Marios Nikos Psychogios & Alexander Pfeil & Ulf Teichgraeber & Ansgar Malich & Ismini Papageorgiou, 2019. "The role of gadolinium in magnetic resonance imaging for early prostate cancer diagnosis: A diagnostic accuracy study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-16, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0227031
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227031
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0227031
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0227031&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0227031?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0227031. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.