You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Detection & Screening IV (MP49)1 May 2024MP49-12 IS PROSTATE CANCER HARBORING CRIBRIFORM PATTERN VISIBLE ON MULTIPARAMETRIC MRI? Divyangi Paralkar, Masatomo Kaneko, Lorenzo Storino Ramacciotti, Atsuko Fujihara, Tsuyoshi Iwata, Akash Sali, Chhavi Gupta, Giovanni Cacciamani, Manju Aron, Michelle Hopstone, Inderbir Gill, and Andre Abreu Divyangi ParalkarDivyangi Paralkar , Masatomo KanekoMasatomo Kaneko , Lorenzo Storino RamacciottiLorenzo Storino Ramacciotti , Atsuko FujiharaAtsuko Fujihara , Tsuyoshi IwataTsuyoshi Iwata , Akash SaliAkash Sali , Chhavi GuptaChhavi Gupta , Giovanni CacciamaniGiovanni Cacciamani , Manju AronManju Aron , Michelle HopstoneMichelle Hopstone , Inderbir GillInderbir Gill , and Andre AbreuAndre Abreu View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008696.31772.28.12AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the visibility of the prostate cancer (PCa) harboring cribriform pattern (CB) on by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). METHODS: From a prospectively prostate biopsy (PBx) database (IRB# HS13-00663), consecutive treatment-naïve PCa patients with, ISUP Grade Group (GG) 2-5, were identified. Previous prostate cancer (PCa) treated and prior prostate surgery patients were excluded. All patients underwent mpMRI followed by MRI transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion 12-14 cores systematic biopsy (SB) plus, at least two, targeted biopsies (TB) per PIRADS≥3. The mpMRI was reported according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) v2 or v2.1 standards. Clinically significant PCa (csPCa, GG≥2) detected on TB was defined as MRI visible and on SB only, was defined as MRI invisible. PBx slides were re-reviewed to document the presence of CB; subdivided further into small and large pattern (glands with≥12 lumina). Predictors of visible CSPCa were assessed by multivariable logistic regression. Statistical significance was defined as p<0.05. RESULTS: Out of 148 patients, 112(76%) had visible CSPCa. CB was identified in 63 (43%) patients of those, 51 (81%) were detected on TB (visible on mpMRI). Patients with MRI visible CSPCa showed a higher median age (69 vs 67 yr, p=0.03); PSA (7.9 vs 5.9 ng/mL, p=0.006); PSA density (PSAD, 0.19 vs 0.14 ng/mL2, p=0.12); clinical T stage; T1 (43% vs 71%), T2 (38% vs 23%), and T3 (19% vs 6%) (p=0.01); rate of aggressive PCa: GG 2 (36% vs 72%), GG3 (29% vs 22%), GG4 (25% vs 0%), and GG5 (9% vs 6%) (p<0.001); number of cancer positive cores (7 vs 6, p=0.02); and maximum cancer core length (MCCL) (9 vs 7 mm, p<0.001), respectively. On multivariable analysis, GG 3-5 vs 2 (hazard ratio [HR] 4.68, 95% CI 2.05-10.68) and MCCL (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.31) were independent predictors for MRI visible CSPCa; however, the presence of CB was not (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.28-1.99). In patients with CB PCa, the presence of a large subtype of CB (HR 6.65, 95% CI 1.36-32.46) was an independent predictor for MRI visibility. CONCLUSIONS: Majority (81%) of CSPCa harboring Cribriform pattern are visible on mpMRI, however the MRI visibility seems to be associated with higher aggressiveness of the PCa and larger PCa volume. Less aggressive and lower volume PCa containing Cribriform pattern may not be visible on mpMRI. However, among the patients with cribriform, the presence of a large cribriform subtype is an independent predictor for MRI visibility. Source of Funding: None © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e787 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Divyangi Paralkar More articles by this author Masatomo Kaneko More articles by this author Lorenzo Storino Ramacciotti More articles by this author Atsuko Fujihara More articles by this author Tsuyoshi Iwata More articles by this author Akash Sali More articles by this author Chhavi Gupta More articles by this author Giovanni Cacciamani More articles by this author Manju Aron More articles by this author Michelle Hopstone More articles by this author Inderbir Gill More articles by this author Andre Abreu More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Paralkar et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: