Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 12, 2025
MR Molecular Imaging of Prostate Cancer with a Small Molecular CLT1 Peptide Targeted Contrast Agent
Published on: September 3, 2013
Utility of dynamic contrast enhancement for clinically significant prostate cancer detection
Eric V Li1, Sai K Kumar2, Jonathan A Aguiar1
1Department of Urology, Feinberg School of Medicine Northwestern University Chicago Illinois USA.
Objective:
This study aimed to evaluate the association of dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) with clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa, Gleason Grade Group ≥2) and compare biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) nomograms.
Subjects/Patients And Methods:
We identified a retrospective cohort of biopsy naïve patients who underwent pre-biopsy MRI separated by individual MRI series from 2018 to 2022. csPCa detection rates were calculated for patients with peripheral zone (PZ) lesions scored 3-5 on diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) with available DCE (annotated as - or +). bpMRI Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) (3 = 3-, 3+; 4 = 4-, 4+; 5 = 5-, 5+) and mpMRI PIRADS (3 = 3-; 4 = 3+, 4-, 4+; 5 = 5-, 5+) approaches were compared in multivariable logistic regression models. Nomograms for detection of csPCa and ≥GG3 PCa incorporating all biopsy naïve patients who underwent prostate MRI were generated based on available serum biomarkers [PHI, % free prostate-specific antigen (PSA), or total PSA] and validated with an independent cohort.
Results:
Patients (n = 1010) with highest PIRADS lesion in PZ were included in initial analysis with 127 (12.6%) classified as PIRADS 3+ (PIRADS 3 on bpMRI but PIRADS 4 on mpMRI). On multivariable analysis, PIRADS 3+ lesions were associated with higher csPCa rates compared to PIRADS 3- (3+ vs. 3-: OR 1.86, p = 0.024), but lower csPCa rates compared to PIRADS DWI 4 lesions (4 vs. 3+: OR 2.39, p < 0.001). csPCa rates were 19% (3-), 31% (3+), 41.5% (4-), 65.9% (4+), 62.5% (5-), and 92.3% (5+). bpMRI nomograms were non-inferior to mpMRI nomograms in the development (n = 1410) and independent validation (n = 353) cohorts. Risk calculators available at: https://rossnm1.shinyapps.io/MynMRIskCalculator/.
Conclusion:
While DCE positivity by itself was associated with csPCa among patients with highest PIRADS lesions in the PZ, nomogram comparisons suggest that there is no significant difference in performance of bpMRI and mpMRI. bpMRI may be considered as an alternative to mpMRI for prostate cancer evaluation in many situations.
