Accuracy of fractal analysis and PI-RADS assessment of prostate magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of cancer grade groups: a clinical validation study

• DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-08358-y
• Publication Date: 2021-12-18T13:02:12Z
• Authors: Florian Michallek; Henkjan Huisman; Bernd Hamm; Sefer Elezkurtaj; Andreas Maxeiner; Marc Dewey
• Keywords: Image-Guided Biopsy; Male; Neoplasm grading; Image-Guided Biopsy/methods [MeSH] ; Fractals ; Humans [MeSH] ; Perfusion ; Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology [MeSH] ; Retrospective Studies [MeSH] ; Urogenital ; Male [MeSH] ; Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging ; Neoplasm grading ; Prostate/pathology [MeSH] ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods [MeSH] ; Fractals [MeSH] ; Prostatic neoplasms; Prostate; 610; Prostatic Neoplasms; Urogenital; Radboudumc 15: Urological cancers RIHS: Radboud Institute for Health Sciences; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; 3. Good health; Perfusion; 03 medical and health sciences; Fractals; 0302 clinical medicine; Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging; Medical Imaging - Radboud University Medical Center; Humans; Prostatic neoplasms; 600 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften::610 Medizin und Gesundheit::610 Medizin und Gesundheit; Retrospective Studies

Abstract

Objectives Multiparametric MRI with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) assessment is sensitive but not specific for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer. This study validates the diagnostic accuracy of the recently suggested fractal dimension (FD) of perfusion for detecting clinically significant cancer.

Materials and methods Routine clinical MR imaging data, acquired at 3 T without an endorectal coil including dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences, of 72 prostate cancer foci in 64 patients were analyzed. In-bore MRI-guided biopsy with International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading served as reference standard. Previously established FD cutoffs for predicting tumor grade were compared to measurements of the apparent diffusion coefficient (25th percentile, ADC25) and PI-RADS assessment with and without inclusion of the FD as separate criterion.

Results Fractal analysis allowed prediction of ISUP grade groups 1 to 4 but not 5, with high agreement to the reference standard (κFD = 0.88 [CI: 0.79–0.98]). Integrating fractal analysis into PI-RADS allowed a strong improvement in specificity and overall accuracy while maintaining high sensitivity for significant cancer detection (ISUP > 1; PI-RADS alone: sensitivity = 96%, specificity = 20%, area under the receiver operating curve [AUC] = 0.65; versus PI-RADS with fractal analysis: sensitivity = 95%, specificity = 88%, AUC = 0.92, p < 0.001). ADC25 only differentiated low-grade group 1 from pooled higher-grade groups 2–5 (κADC = 0.36 [CI: 0.12–0.59]). Importantly, fractal analysis was significantly more reliable than ADC25 in predicting non-significant and clinically significant cancer (AUCFD = 0.96 versus AUCADC = 0.75, p < 0.001). Diagnostic accuracy was not significantly affected by zone location.

Conclusions Fractal analysis is accurate in noninvasively predicting tumor grades in prostate cancer and adds independent information when implemented into PI-RADS assessment. This opens the opportunity to individually adjust biopsy priority and method in individual patients.

Key Points • Fractal analysis of perfusion is accurate in noninvasively predicting tumor grades in prostate cancer using dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences (κFD = 0.88). • Including the fractal dimension into PI-RADS as a separate criterion improved specificity (from 20 to 88%) and overall accuracy (AUC from 0.86 to 0.96) while maintaining high sensitivity (96% versus 95%) for predicting clinically significant cancer. • Fractal analysis was significantly more reliable than ADC25 in predicting clinically significant cancer (AUCFD = 0.96 versus AUCADC = 0.75).