What are we missing? False- negative cancers at multiparametric MR imaging of the prostate

Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Date











Purpose: To characterize clinically important prostate cancers missed at multiparametric (MP) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. Materials and Methods: The local institutional review board approved this HIPAAcompliant retrospective single-center study, which included 100 consecutive patients who had undergone MP MR imaging and subsequent radical prostatectomy. A genitourinary pathologist blinded to MP MR findings outlined prostate cancers on whole-mount pathology slices. Two readers correlated mapped lesions with reports of prospectively read MP MR images. Readers were blinded to histopathology results during prospective reading. At histopathologic examination, 80 clinically unimportant lesions (,5 mm; Gleason score, 3+3) were excluded. The same two readers, who were not blinded to histopathologic findings, retrospectively reviewed cancers missed at MP MR imaging and assigned a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 score to better understand false-negative lesion characteristics. Descriptive statistics were used to define patient characteristics, including age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, PSA density, race, digital rectal examination results, and biopsy results before MR imaging. Student t test was used to determine any demographic differences between patients with false-negative MP MR imaging findings and those with correct prospective identification of all lesions. Results: Of the 162 lesions, 136 (84%) were correctly identified with MP MR imaging. Size of eight lesions was underestimated. Among the 26 (16%) lesions missed at MP MR imaging, Gleason score was 3+4 in 17 (65%), 4+3 in one (4%), 4+4 in seven (27%), and 4+5 in one (4%). Retrospective PI-RADS version 2 scores were assigned (PI-RADS 1, n = 8; PI-RADS 2, n = 7; PI-RADS 3, n = 6; and PI-RADS 4, n = 5). On a perpatient basis, MP MR imaging depicted clinically important prostate cancer in 99 of 100 patients. At least one clinically important tumor was missed in 26 (26%) patients, and lesion size was underestimated in eight (8%). Conclusion: Clinically important lesions can be missed or their size can be underestimated at MP MR imaging. Of missed lesions, 58% were not seen or were characterized as benign findings at second-look analysis. Recognition of the limitations of MP MR imaging is important, and new approaches to reduce this false-negative rate are needed.

This document is currently not available here.