多参数磁共振成像中动态对比增强状态在诊断PI-RADS 4分前列腺癌中的应用

doi:10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2023.05.010

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的: 评估多参数磁共振成像(multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging，mpMRI)中动态对比增强(dynamic contrast enhanced，DCE)序列状态对前列腺外周带前列腺影像报告和数据评分系统(prostate imaging reporting and data system，PI-RADS)4分病灶的诊断价值。方法: 回顾性分析2018年1月至2021年9月在北京大学第一医院行mpMRI提示外周带PI-RADS 4分，并行前列腺穿刺活检患者的临床资料。根据DCE序列状态分为常规PI-RADS 4分组和综合PI-RADS 4分组(弥散加权成像3分+DCE阳性1分)。单因素和多因素Logistic回归分析患者的年龄、总前列腺特异性抗原(prostate specific antigen，PSA)、游离与总PSA比值(f/tPSA)、前列腺体积(prostate volume，PV)、PSA密度(PSA density，PSAD)、DCE状态等指标与前列腺穿刺活检阳性的相关性。结果: 267例PI-RADS 4分患者中前列腺癌217例(81.27%)，非癌病变50例(18.73%)。统计学分析提示，年龄、tPSA、PV、PSAD在前列腺癌组和非癌病变组间差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05)，但两组间f/tPSA差异无统计学意义。按DCE序列状态分组后，常规PI-RADS 4分组和综合PI-RADS 4分组穿刺活检结果有明显差异，常规PIRADS 4分组有更高的穿刺阳性率(88.0% vs. 72.6%，P=0.001)，综合PI-RADS 4分组的PV更大。Logistic单因素分析结果显示，前列腺癌的诊断与年龄、tPSA、f/tPSA、PV和DCE序列状态有关(P＜0.05)；多因素分析结果显示，年龄、tPSA、PV和DCE序列状态是诊断前列腺癌的独立危险因素(P＜0.05)。结论: 对于外周带PI-RADS 4分病灶，tPSA、f/tPSA、PV、PSAD是提高前列腺癌诊断准确性的指标；考虑mpMRI的DCE序列状态可以更精准地选择穿刺患者，降低前列腺癌漏诊率并避免不必要的穿刺。

关键词: 前列腺肿瘤, 磁共振成像, 动态对比增强, 前列腺影像报告和数据系统, 活组织检查

Abstract:

Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic value of dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) 4 lesion in prostate peripheral zone. Methods: The clinical data of patients with PI-RADS 4 lesion in prostate peripheral zone who underwent prostate biopsy from January 2018 to September 2021 in Peking University First Hospital were retrospectively included. According to DCE status, the patients were divided into the conventional group (4 points for diffusion-weighted imaging) and the comprehensive group (3 points for diffusion-weighted imaging + 1 point for DCE positive). Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for comparison was conducted between prostate cancer and non-cancer patients. Univariate and multivariate Logistic regression were performed to analyze the correlation of positive biopsy with age, total prostate specific antigen (PSA), free PSA/total PSA (f/tPSA), prostate volume (PV), PSA density (PSAD) and DCE status. Results: Among the 267 prostate biopsy patients, 217 cases were diagnosed as prostatic cancer (81.27%) and 50 cases were non-cancer (18.73%). Statistical analysis between the prostatic cancer group and the non-cancer group showed that there were significant differences in age, tPSA, PV and PSAD (all P < 0.05), but no significant differences in f/tPSA between the two groups. About different PI-RADS 4 lesion groups, the conventional group and the comprehensive group showed significant difference in biopsy results (P=0.001), and the conventional group had a higher positive rate. The PV of comprehensive group was larger than that of the conventional group. Among the prostate cancer patients diagnosed by biopsy, statistical analysis between the conventional group and comprehensive group showed that there were not significant differences in International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade and distinguishing clinically significant prostate cancer (all P > 0.05). Logistic univariate analysis showed that the diagnosis of prostate cancer was related to age, tPSA, f/tPSA, PV and DCE group status (all P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that age, tPSA, PV and DCE group status (all P < 0.05) were independent risk factors for the diagnosis of prostatic cancer. Conclusion: tPSA, f/tPSA, PV and PSAD are the indicators to improve the diagnosis of prostatic cancer with PI-RADS 4 lesion in peripheral zone lesions. DCE status is worth considering, so that we can select patients for biopsy more accurately, reduce the rate of missed diagnosis of prostate cancer as well as avoid unnecessary prostate puncture.

Key words: Prostatic neoplasms, Magnetic resonance imaging, Dynamic contrast enhanced, Prostate imaging reporting and data system, Biopsy

中图分类号:

R737.25

袁昌巍,李德润,李志华,刘毅,山刚志,李学松,周利群. 多参数磁共振成像中动态对比增强状态在诊断PI-RADS 4分前列腺癌中的应用[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2023, 55(5): 838-842.

Chang-wei YUAN,De-run LI,Zhi-hua LI,Yi LIU,Gang-zhi SHAN,Xue-song LI,Li-qun ZHOU. Application of dynamic contrast enhanced status in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostatic cancer with PI-RADS 4 lesion[J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(5): 838-842.

图/表 4

表1

表2

表3

表4

参考文献 13

1	Siegel RL , Miller KD , Jemal A . Cancer statistics, 2020[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2020, 70 (1): 7- 30. doi: 10.3322/caac.21590
2	Culp MB , Soerjomataram I , Efstathiou JA , et al. Recent global patterns in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates[J]. Eur Urol, 2020, 77 (1): 38- 52. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.08.005
3	Cabarrus MC , Westphalen AC . Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate-a basic tutorial[J]. Transl Androl Urol, 2017, 6 (3): 376- 386. doi: 10.21037/tau.2017.01.06
4	Meng X , Rosenkrantz AB , Mendhiratta N , et al. Relationship between prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), biopsy indication, and MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy outcomes[J]. Eur Urol, 2016, 69 (3): 512- 517. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.005
5	Barentsz JO , Richenberg J , Clements R , et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012[J]. Eur Radiol, 2012, 22 (4): 746- 757. doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y
6	Turkbey B , Rosenkrantz AB , Haider MA , et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2[J]. Eur Urol, 2019, 76 (3): 340- 351. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
7	Weinreb JC , Barentsz JO , Choyke PL , et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging-reporting and data system: 2015, version 2[J]. Eur Urol, 2016, 69 (1): 16- 40. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052
8	Ahmed HU , El-Shater Bosaily A , Brown LC , et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate can-cer (PROMIS): A paired validating confirmatory study[J]. Lancet, 2017, 389 (10071): 815- 822. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
9	Epstein JI , Egevad L , Amin MB , et al. 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[J]. Am J Surg Pathol, 2016, 40 (2): 244- 252. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530
10	赫捷, 陈万青, 李霓, 等. 中国前列腺癌筛查与早诊早治指南(2022, 北京)[J]. 中华肿瘤杂志, 2022, 44 (1): 29- 53.
11	尚柳彤, 王婷婷. CT与MRI诊断前列腺癌的临床价值分析[J]. 中国CT和MRI杂志, 2016, 14 (1): 99- 101.
12	Iyama Y , Nakaura T , Kidoh M , et al. Fat suppressed contrast-enhanced T1-weighted dynamic magnetic resonance imaging at 3T: Comparison of image quality between spectrally adiabatic iversion recovery and the multiecho dixon technique in imaging of the prostate[J]. J Comput Assist Tomogr, 2017, 41 (3): 382- 387. doi: 10.1097/RCT.0000000000000540
13	Ream JM , Doshi AM , Dunst D , et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the prostate: An intraindividual assessment of the effect of temporal resolution on qualitative detection and quantitative analysis of histopathologically proven prostate cancer[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2017, 45 (5): 1464- 1475. doi: 10.1002/jmri.25451

相关文章 15

[1]	李志存, 吴天俣, 梁磊, 范宇, 孟一森, 张骞. 穿刺活检单针阳性前列腺癌术后病理升级的危险因素分析及列线图模型构建[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2024, 56(5): 896-901.
[2]	邢念增,王明帅,杨飞亚,尹路,韩苏军. 前列腺免活检创新理念的临床实践及其应用前景[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2024, 56(4): 565-566.
[3]	田宇轩,阮明健,刘毅,李德润,吴静云,沈棋,范宇,金杰. 双参数MRI改良PI-RADS评分4分和5分病灶的最大径对临床有意义前列腺癌的预测效果[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2024, 56(4): 567-574.
[4]	姚凯烽,阮明健,李德润,田宇轩,陈宇珂,范宇,刘毅. 靶向穿刺联合区域系统穿刺对PI-RADS 4~5分患者的前列腺癌诊断效能[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2024, 56(4): 575-581.
[5]	欧俊永,倪坤明,马潞林,王国良,颜野,杨斌,李庚午,宋昊东,陆敏,叶剑飞,张树栋. 肌层浸润性膀胱癌合并中高危前列腺癌患者的预后因素[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2024, 56(4): 582-588.
[6]	薛蔚,董樑,钱宏阳,费笑晨. 前列腺癌新辅助治疗与辅助治疗的现状及进展[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2023, 55(5): 775-780.
[7]	刘毅,袁昌巍,吴静云,沈棋,肖江喜,赵峥,王霄英,李学松,何志嵩,周利群. 靶向穿刺+6针系统穿刺对PI-RADS 5分患者的前列腺癌诊断效能[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2023, 55(5): 812-817.
[8]	毛海,张帆,张展奕,颜野,郝一昌,黄毅,马潞林,褚红玲,张树栋. 基于MRI前列腺腺体相关参数构建腹腔镜前列腺癌术后尿失禁的预测模型[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2023, 55(5): 818-824.
[9]	田聪,刘军,杨波,乔佳佳,黄晓波,许清泉. 经皮肾镜取石术中异常肾盂黏膜活检结果分析[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2023, 55(5): 948-952.
[10]	刘颖,霍然,徐慧敏,王筝,王涛,袁慧书. 磁共振血管壁成像评估颈动脉中重度狭窄患者斑块特征与脑血流灌注的相关性[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2023, 55(4): 646-651.
[11]	傅强,高冠英,徐雁,林卓华,孙由静,崔立刚. 无症状髋关节前上盂唇撕裂超声与磁共振检查的对比研究[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2023, 55(4): 665-669.
[12]	郑丹枫,李君禹,李佳曦,张英爽,钟延丰,于淼. 青少年特发性脊柱侧凸椎旁肌的病理特征[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2023, 55(2): 283-291.
[13]	叶珊,金萍萍,张楠,邬海博,石林,赵强,杨坤,袁慧书,樊东升. 肌萎缩侧索硬化患者认知功能改变与脑皮层厚度分析[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2022, 54(6): 1158-1162.
[14]	蔡颖,万巧琴,蔡宪杰,高亚娟,韩鸿宾. 光生物调节加速脑组织间液引流及其机制[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2022, 54(5): 1000-1005.
[15]	王书磊,高阳旭,张宏武,杨海波,李辉,李宇,沈笠雪,姚红新. 儿童基底节区生殖细胞瘤30例临床分析[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2022, 54(2): 222-226.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

Items	Total (n=267)	Prostate cancer group (n=217)	Non-cancer group (n=50)	P value
Age/years, ${\bar x}$±s	68.57±8.48	69.97±7.76	62.46±8.84	< 0.001
tPSA/(ng/mL), M (P₂₅, P₇₅)	9.26 (6.31, 13.23)	9.61 (6.59, 13.40)	7.23 (5.25, 12.93)	0.016
f/tPSA, ${\bar x}$±s	0.14±0.06	0.13±0.06	0.15±0.07	0.057
PV/mL, ${\bar x}$±s	53.12±33.16	48.55±28.85	72.98±42.47	< 0.001
PSAD/(ng/mL²), M (P₂₅, P₇₅)	0.20 (0.13, 0.36)	0.24 (0.14, 0.38)	0.12 (0.09, 0.18)	< 0.001
DCE, n(%)				0.001
Comprehensive group	117 (43.8)	85 (72.6)	32 (27.4)
Conventional group	150 (56.2)	132 (88.0)	18 (12.0)

Items	Comprehensive group (n=117)	Conventional group (n=150)	P value
Age/years, ${\bar x}$±s	68.80±8.80	68.26±8.07	0.610
tPSA/(ng/mL), M (P₂₅, P₇₅)	9.30 (6.15, 14.29)	9.21 (6.46, 12.86)	0.923
f/tPSA, ${\bar x}$±s	0.14±0.06	0.14±0.06	0.955
PV/mL, ${\bar x}$±s	55.98±37.27	50.89±29.50	0.596
PSAD/(ng/mL²), M (P₂₅, P₇₅)	0.19 (0.11, 0.37)	0.20 (0.14, 0.35)	0.535

Items	Comprehensive group (n=85)	Conventional group (n=132)	P value
ISUP, n(%)			0.346
1	14 (48.3)	15 (51.7)
2	27 (34.2)	52 (65.8)
3	15 (33.3)	30 (66.7)
4	13 (39.4)	20 (60.6)
5	16 (51.6)	15 (48.4)
csPCa, n(%)			0.310
Yes	71 (37.8)	117 (62.2)
No	14 (48.3)	15 (51.7)

Items	Univariate analysis			Multivariate analysis
Items	OR	95%CI	P value	OR	95%CI	P value
Age	1.12	1.07-1.17	< 0.001	1.22	1.42-1.31	< 0.001
tPSA/(ng/mL)
＜4	1			1
4-10	3.11	1.00-9.72	0.050	8.47	1.88-38.20	0.005
>10 and ≤20	3.65	1.10-12.06	0.030	10.69	2.11-54.08	0.004
＞20	9.00	1.50-53.86	0.020	142.55	8.05-2 523.13	0.001
f/tPSA	0.01	0.00-0.87	0.043	0.031	0.00-71.84	0.379
PV	0.98	0.97-0.99	< 0.001	0.96	0.96-0.98	< 0.001
DCE status	0.36	0.19-0.69	0.002	0.29	0.13-0.66	0.003