Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Clinical Research
  • Published:

Prediction of extraprostatic extension by MRI tumor contact length: difference between anterior and posterior prostate cancer

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 22, pages 539–545 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background

Tumor contact length (TCL) is defined as the extent of contact between prostate cancer and the prostatic capsule, and its predictive value for microscopic extraprostatic extension (EPE) has been reported. However, the impact of the zonal origin (anterior or posterior tumor) of the tumor on the diagnosis of EPE is controversial.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the records of 233 consecutive patients who underwent preoperative MRI and radical prostatectomy. We designated their tumors as anterior or posterior, and evaluated the correlation between the TCL measured by MRI and microscopic EPE in the radical prostatectomy specimen. Then, we created the predicted probability curves for EPE versus TCL for anterior and posterior prostate cancer.

Results

There were 109 patients (47%) with an anterior tumor and 124 patients (53%) with a posterior tumor. Postoperative pathological analysis confirmed pT3 in 18 patients (17%) with an anterior tumor and in 53 patients (43%) with a posterior tumor. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the zonal origin of the tumor was an independent predictive factor for EPE. We developed separate probability curves of EPE versus TCL for anterior and posterior prostate cancer, which revealed that anterior tumors were less likely to invade the extraprostatic tissues. Among patients whose TCL was 10–20 mm, 9/32 patients (28%) with an anterior tumor had EPE compared with 24/45 patients (53%) with a posterior tumor (p = 0.036). The decision curve of this EPE predictive model had high clinical efficacy.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that anterior tumors have more favorable pathological characteristics than posterior tumors with the same TCL measured by MRI. We constructed two separate predicted probability curves for EPE after discriminating anterior and posterior tumors, which will be useful for decision making in clinical practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ball MW, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Extent of extraprostatic extension independently influences biochemical recurrence-free survival: evidence for further pT3 subclassification. Urology. 2015;85:161–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Satake N, Ohori M, Yu C, Kattan MW, Ohno Y, Miyakawa A, et al. Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting extracapsular extension in radical prostatectomy specimens. Int J Urol. 2010;17:267–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Tosoian JJ, Chappidi M, Feng Z, Humphreys EB, Han M, Pavlovich CP, et al. Prediction of pathological stage based on clinical stage, serum prostate-specific antigen, and biopsy Gleason score: Partin Tables in the contemporary era. BJU Int. 2017;119:676–83.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69:16–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ueno Y, Tamada T, Bist V, Reinhold C, Miyake H, Tanaka U, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: current role in prostate cancer management. Int J Urol. 2016;23:550–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Boesen L, Chabanova E, Løgager V, Balslev I, Mikines K, Thomsen HS. Prostate cancer staging with extracapsular extension risk scoring using multiparametric MRI: a correlation with histopathology. Eur Radiol. 2015;25:1776–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Baco E, Rud E, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A, Eggesbø HB, Hung AJ, et al. Predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging determined tumor contact length for extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2015;193:466–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rosenkrantz AB, Shanbhogue AK, Wang A, Kong MX, Babb JS, Taneja SS. Length of capsular contact for diagnosing extraprostatic extension on prostate MRI: assessment at an optimal threshold. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016;43:990–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Woo S, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH. Length of capsular contact on prostate MRI as a predictor of extracapsular extension: which is the most optimal sequence? Acta Radiol. 2017;58:489–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kongnyuy M, Sidana A, George AK, Muthigi A, Iyer A, Ho R, et al. Tumor contact with prostate capsule on magnetic resonance imaging: a potential biomarker for staging and prognosis. Urol Oncol. 2017;35:30.e1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Costa DN, Passoni NM, Leyendecker JR, de Leon AD, Lotan Y, Roehrborn CG. Diagnostic utility of a Likert scale versus qualitative descriptors and length of capsular contact for determining extraprostatic tumor extension at multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;210:1066–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Rud E, Diep L, Baco E. A prospective study evaluating indirect MRI-signs for the prediction of extraprostatic disease in patients with prostate cancer: tumor volume, tumor contact length and tumor apparent diffusion coefficient. World J Urol. 2018;36:629–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Takahashi H, Epstein JI, Wakui S, Yamamoto T, Furusato B, Zhang M. Differences in prostate cancer grade, stage, and location in radical prostatectomy specimens from United States and Japan. Prostate. 2014;74:321–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sato S, Takahashi H, Kimura T, Egawa S, Furusato B, Ikegami M. Clinicopathological importance of anterior prostate cancer in Japanese Men. Pathol Int. 2017;67:156–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA; Grading Committee. 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. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40:244–52.

  16. Vickers AJ, Elkin EB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Mak. 2006;26:565–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Al-Ahmadie HA, Tickoo SK, Olgac S, Gopalan A, Scardino PT, Reuter VE, et al. Anterior-predominant prostatic tumors: zone of origin and pathologic outcomes at radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32:229–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ukimura O, Troncoso P, Ramirez EI, Babaian RJ. Prostate cancer staging: correlation between ultrasound determined tumor contact length and pathologically confirmed extraprostatic extension. J Urol. 1998;159:1251–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Rud E, Klotz D, Rennesund K, Baco E, Berge V, Lien D, et al. Detection of the index tumour and tumour volume in prostate cancer using T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone. BJU Int. 2014;114:E32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sundi D, Kryvenko ON, Carter HB, Ross AE, Epstein JI, Schaeffer EM. Pathological examination of radical prostatectomy specimens in men with very low risk disease at biopsy reveals distinct zonal distribution of cancer in black American men. J Urol. 2014;191:60–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Shaikhibrahim Z, Lindstrot A, Ellinger J, Rogenhofer S, Buettner R, Perner S, et al. The peripheral zone of the prostate is more prone to tumor development than the transitional zone: is the ETS family the key? Mol Med Rep. 2012;5:313–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Guo CC, Zuo G, Cao D, Troncoso P, Czerniak BA. Prostate cancer of transition zone origin lacks TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion. Mod Pathol. 2009;22:866–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Gopalan A, Leversha MA, Dudas ME, Maschino AC, Chang J, Al-Ahmadie HA, et al. TMPRSS2-ERG rearrangement in dominant anterior prostatic tumours: incidence and correlation with ERG immunohistochemistry. Histopathology. 2013;63:279–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Leyten GH, Hessels D, Jannink SA, Smit FP, de Jong H, Cornel EB, et al. Prospective multicentre evaluation of PCA3 and TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusions as diagnostic and prognostic urinary biomarkers for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014;65:534–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Fine SW, Al-Ahmadie HA, Gopalan A, Tickoo SK, Scardino PT, Reuter VE. Anatomy of the anterior prostate and extraprostatic space: a contemporary surgical pathology analysis. Adv Anat Pathol. 2007;14:401–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bouyé S, Potiron E, Puech P, Leroy X, Lemaitre L, Villers A. Transition zone and anterior stromal prostate cancers: zone of origin and intraprostatic patterns of spread at histopathology. Prostate. 2009;69:105–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hassan MO, Maksem J. The prostatic perineural space and its relation to tumor spread: an ultrastructural study. Am J Surg Pathol. 1980;4:143–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Ohori M, Scardino PT, Lapin SL, Seale-Hawkins C, Link J, Wheeler TM. The mechanisms and prognostic significance of seminal vesicle involvement by prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol. 1993;17:1252–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

    Kazuhiro Matsumoto, Kimiharu Takamatsu, Toshikazu Takeda, Takeo Kosaka, Ryuichi Mizuno, Eiji Kikuchi & Mototsugu Oya

  2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

    Hirotaka Akita, Keiichi Narita & Masahiro Jinzaki

  3. Department of Pathology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

    Akinori Hashiguchi

Authors
  1. Kazuhiro Matsumoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hirotaka Akita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Keiichi Narita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Akinori Hashiguchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kimiharu Takamatsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Toshikazu Takeda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Takeo Kosaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ryuichi Mizuno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Eiji Kikuchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Mototsugu Oya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Masahiro Jinzaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kazuhiro Matsumoto.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Matsumoto, K., Akita, H., Narita, K. et al. Prediction of extraprostatic extension by MRI tumor contact length: difference between anterior and posterior prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 22, 539–545 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-019-0136-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-019-0136-3

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links