
==== Front
World J Urol
World J Urol
World Journal of Urology
0724-4983
1433-8726
Springer Berlin Heidelberg Berlin/Heidelberg

39302458
5232
10.1007/s00345-024-05232-6
Research
Bicenter validation of a risk model for the preoperative prediction of extraprostatic extension of localized prostate cancer combining clinical and multiparametric MRI parameters
Ostau Nicola Edith von nicola.vonostau@uk-essen.de

1
http://orcid.org/0009-0000-9472-8956
Handke Analena Elisa 12
Wiesenfarth Manuel 3
Albers Peter 4
Antoch Gerald 5
Noldus Joachim 2
Reis Henning 6
Cotarelo Cristina 78
Preetz Julia 7
Umutlu Lale 9
Ingenwerth Marc 10
Radtke Jan Philipp 1411
Hadaschik Boris 1
Schimmöller Lars 512
Kesch Claudia 1
1 grid.410718.b 0000 0001 0262 7331 Department of Urology, University Hospital Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, 45147 Essen, Germany
2 grid.5570.7 0000 0004 0490 981X Department of Urology, Ruhr-University Bochum, Marien Hospital, Herne, Germany
3 https://ror.org/04cdgtt98 grid.7497.d 0000 0004 0492 0584 Division of Biostatistics, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
4 grid.14778.3d 0000 0000 8922 7789 Department of Urology, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
5 grid.411327.2 0000 0001 2176 9917 Medical Faculty, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Düsseldorf, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany
6 https://ror.org/03f6n9m15 grid.411088.4 0000 0004 0578 8220 Division of Pathology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
7 https://ror.org/024z2rq82 grid.411327.2 0000 0001 2176 9917 Department of Pathology, Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
8 grid.411778.c 0000 0001 2162 1728 Department of Pathology, University Hospital Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
9 grid.410718.b 0000 0001 0262 7331 Division of Radiology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
10 grid.410718.b 0000 0001 0262 7331 Department of Pathology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
11 https://ror.org/04cdgtt98 grid.7497.d 0000 0004 0492 0584 Division of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
12 https://ror.org/04tsk2644 grid.5570.7 0000 0004 0490 981X Department of Diagnostic, Interventional Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Marien Hospital Herne, University Hospital of the Ruhr-University Bochum, Herne, Germany
20 9 2024
20 9 2024
2024
42 1 53022 2 2024
16 8 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Background

This study aimed to validate a previously published risk model (RM) which combines clinical and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) parameters to predict extraprostatic extension (EPE) of prostate cancer (PC) prior to radical prostatectomy (RP).

Materials and methods

A previously published RM combining clinical with mpMRI parameters including European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) classification for EPE was retrospectively evaluated in a cohort of two urological university hospitals in Germany. Consecutive patients (n = 205, January 2015 –June 2021) with available preoperative MRI images, clinical information including PSA, prostate volume, ESUR classification for EPE, histopathological results of MRI-fusion biopsy and RP specimen were included. Validation was performed by receiver operating characteristic analysis and calibration plots. The RM‘s performance was compared to ESUR criteria.

Results

Histopathological T3 stage was detected in 43% of the patients (n = 89); 45% at Essen and 42% at Düsseldorf. Discrimination performance between pT2 and pT3 of the RM in the entire cohort was AUC = 0.86 (AUC = 0.88 at site 1 and AUC = 0.85 at site 2). Calibration was good over the entire probability range. The discrimination performance of ESUR classification alone was comparable (AUC = 0.87).

Conclusions

The RM showed good discriminative performance to predict EPE for decision-making for RP as a patient-tailored risk stratification. However, when experienced MRI reading is available, standardized MRI reading with ESUR scoring is comparable regarding information outcome. A main limitation is the potentially limited transferability to other populations because of the high prevalence of EPE in our subgroups.

Keywords

Prostate cancer
Extraprostatic extension
Multiparametric MRI
Positive surgical margins
Universitätsklinikum Essen (8912)Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

issue-copyright-statement© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

The decision-making process of planning a radical prostatectomy (RP) and estimating a patient’s prognosis in prostate cancer (PC) is still controversial [1, 2]. The traditional approach of local staging with prostate specific antigen (PSA), biopsy International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading and clinical T-stage on digital-rectal examination (DRE), does not appear to reliably predict extraprostatic extension (EPE, cT3a) [3, 4]. The introduction of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate has significantly improved the prognostic value of clinical parameters [5]. This has led to better preoperative prediction of EPE.

The integration of clinical data with mpMRI findings has gained significant importance for urologists in order to better stratify those men who may undergo oncological secure nerve-sparing RP [6, 7]. There has been a considerable interest in developing refined clinical tools and multivariable risk models (RM) able to predict the probability of EPE [6–8]. There is evidence suggesting that the addition of MRI findings to clinical information increases the accuracy of diagnosis, but only few of these models have been either internally or externally validated [1, 5, 9, 10]. Therefore, there is a need of further robust validation studies.

The purpose of this study was to validate a previously published RM predicting the probability of EPE based on clinical parameters and MRI features in patients who underwent MRI prior to RP and to compare the RM to the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) classification for EPE [11, 12].

Materials and methods

Study population

The study population comprised 352 consecutive patients who underwent mpMRI and subsequent radical prostatectomy (RP). The analysed data included consecutive patients from two different sites (Site 1 = University hospital Essen with n = 75 and Site 2 = University hospital Düsseldorf with n = 130), subsequent systematic and targeted biopsy and RP. 147 patients (54/129 from site 1, 93/223 from site 2) were excluded from analysis due to incomplete data. The evaluation of each cohort was approved by the local ethics committee at University Hospital Essen (19-8978-BO) and University Hospital Düsseldorf (2018-227-RetroDEuA). Patients were enrolled and registered into a retrospective database assessing RP between January 2018 and June 2021in Essen and from January 2015 until December 2017 in Düsseldorf prior to RP with personal resources being the reason for the two different time frames.

Data were retrospectively analysed. Key inclusion criteria were available information on PSA, clinical T-stage, ISUP Grade group (GG) mpMRI with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and RP specimen [13]. MRI examinations were classified according to PI-RADS and PI-QUAL (for analysis all classifications were transferred to v2.1). In Essen most MRIs (74/129) were performed in external institutions. All MRIs were re-read by an expert uro-radiologist (LU). In Düsseldorf, all MRIs were read/supervised by an expert uro-radiologist (LS) and all of them were performed in the centre.

Side-specific DRE staging information was collected before biopsy by the treating urologist during routine clinical care. Both side-specific DRE and mpMRI staging information were subdivided into three subclasses. These included nonpalpable disease (T1), organ-confined localized disease (T2), EPE (T3a), seminal vesical invasion (T3b) or T4.

Imaging

All mpMRI examinations were acquired according to international recommendations measured by PI-QUAL score at 3-Tesla scanners with high imaging quality [13, 14]. Prostate volume, PI-RADS classification, index lesion (IL) with size and capsule contact length (CCL) and the clinical T-stage (cT2a to cT3b) were assessed on mpMRI, predominantly sequence T2w, before biopsy. Prostate volume (PV), CCL, lesion diameter and lesion volume were retrospectively determined. ESUR classification for EPE includes dedicated criteria for assessing extraprostatic tumour extension, seminal vesical invasion, and involvement of the bladder neck. The read was done routinely according to PIRADSv2.1 before surgery by specialized uro-/radiologists (LS, LU). Only in case of no written report was available for the analysis the mpMRT was retrospectively re-read blinded to clinical and histopathological parameters (LS, JPR, LU) [13]. The same findings were used for both RM and ESUR.

MRI/TRUS fusion protocol

All men underwent transperineal or transrectal targeted biopsies of MRI reported suspicious lesions and systematic biopsy. At both sites, MRI/TRUS-fusion biopsy was performed using the Invivo Uronav platform, Philips, Gainesville, FL, USA. At the Essen site, n = 5 TB per lesion were performed, whereas at Düsseldorf n = 2 TB were facilitated.

Radical prostatectomy

188 (92%) men underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and 17 (8%) retropubic RP. Each RP was performed by or under supervision of one of four experienced surgeons, each with at least 10 year of experience, having performed > 200 RPs. The surgeon was aware of MRI results.

Histopathology

Histopathological workup followed current guidelines and local Standard Operation Procedures (SOPs) including complete embedding of the prostate. Reporting was done under the supervision of expert urogenital pathologists following ISUP and WHO criteria. All relevant data including TNM-information and Gleason Grades were reported adherent to national guidelines and ISUP criteria. If EPE was observed, the laterality (left, right, or both hemispheres) was reported. EPE was defined as a tumor that bulges the prostate contour, with direct extension into the periprostatic (fat) tissue, in the posterolateral area or invasion of the neurovascular bundle. The distinction between focal and established EPE was reported, but not taken into consideration in this manuscript.

Statistical analysis

Patient demographics, MRI and RP results were analysed descriptively. Detailed information on RM development, have been published previously [15]. The regression equation for the RM including clinical T-stage from DRE, ISUP grade, PSA, mpMRI information (prostate volume in ml and CCL in mm) and the ESUR score was as follows:

\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\begin{aligned}\text{log}\left(\frac{{\pi\:}_{i}}{1-{\pi\:}_{i}}\right)=\\&-0.4846\:+\:0.1933\:ESU{R}_{Score}\\&+\:1.0096\:I(clinical\_T\_stage\:=T2b/c)\:\:\\&+\:\:2.6804\:I(clinical\_T\_stage=T3/4)\\&-0.9928\:log(MRI\_Volume)\\&+\:0.493\:log\left(PSA\right)-0.0749\:I(ISUP=2)\\&+\:0.7085\:I(ISUP=3)\\&+\:1.19421\:I(ISUP=4)+\:1.1833\:I(ISUP=5)\\&+\:0.1004\:MRI\_Capsule\_contact\_length\end{aligned}$$\end{document}

where \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\:\text{log}\left(\frac{{\pi\:}_{i}}{1-{\pi\:}_{i}}\right)$$\end{document} is the logit, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\:clinical\_T\_stage\:$$\end{document}is the T stage grouped into T1/2a, T2b/c and T3/4, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\:MRI\_Volume$$\end{document} is the prostate volume in ml and \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\:MRI\_Capsule\_contact\_length$$\end{document} is the length the tumor is in contact with the capsule in mm. \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\:I(clinical\_T\_stage=j)$$\end{document} denotes the dummy variable which is 1 if \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\:clinical\_T\_stage=j$$\end{document} for j= \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\:T2b/c,T3/4$$\end{document} (reference category T1/2a) and 0 otherwise, similarly for I(ISUP=j) with reference category ISUP=1.

We further compared the RM above to ESUR classification only (with model development on data from [12]) and equally externally validated it on the present data set. The formula was as follows:

\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\:\text{log}\left(\frac{{\pi\:}_{i}}{1-{\pi\:}_{i}}\right)=-2.6540\:+\:0.4976\:\text{E}\text{S}\text{U}\text{R}\_\text{S}\text{c}\text{o}\text{r}\text{e}$$\end{document}

Discrimination performance of the RM was assessed using Area-under-the-curve (AUC) of receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and compared to ESUR classification alone (Supplemental Table 1; Fig. 1). DeLong 95% confidence intervals for AUCs are provided. Statistical differences between AUCs of prediction models were analysed using DeLong’s test for two correlated ROC curves. All tests performed were two sided, with a significance level of 5%.

Fig. 1 ROC curve analysis of the EPE-RM (black curve) and ESUR (red curve) for the prediction of an EPE. A: Site 1 (Essen); B: Site 2 (Düsseldorf)

The extent of over- or underestimation of predicted probabilities relative to observed probabilities of sPC was explored graphically using calibration plots for the entire cohort and for both subcohorts separately.

Statistical analyses were performed using R version 4.2.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria), packages ModelGood and Calibration Curves [16–18]. Reporting followed Standards of Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) guidelines (S4 Table) [19].

Results

Patient characteristics, MRI and histopathological data are given in Table 1. EPE was detected in 89 patients (43%). Stratification by centres revealed EPE in 34 men (45%) at site 1 and 55 (42%) men at site 2 (Table 2). First, we assessed the discrimination performance of the RM published by Nyarangi-Dix et al. in our data set (Fig. 1, Supplemental Table 1) [11, 13, 20]. The AUC of the RM in the entire cohort was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.81–0.91) (Supplemental Table 1). In subgroup analyses, the RM`s AUC in Site 1 was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.81–0.96) (Fig. 1A), whereas discrimination in Site 2 was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.78–0.92) (Fig. 1B).

Table 1 Patients’ baseline characteristics of the total cohort and in subgroups of site 1 (Essen) and site 2 (Düsseldorf) including baseline clinical parameters, biopsy and prostatectomy results

Baseline characteristics	all	Site 1	Site 2	
Number	205	75	130	
Clinical parameter				
Median Age, years (IQR)	67 (61–71)	67 (61–70)	67 (62–72)	
Median iPSA-Level (IQR), ng/ml	8.9 (6.5–13.4)	8.3 (5.6–12.0)	9.0 (7.0-13.9)	
Suspicious DRE findings (≥ T2), n (%)	22 (10.7)	18 (24)	4 (2.0)	
Median prostate volume (IQR), ml	40 (30–57)	40 (33–60)	37 (30–50)	
Median PSA density (IQR)	0.23 (0.14–0.36)	0.18 (0.12–0.27)	0.25 (0.17–0.38)	
Histopathology biopsy				
ISUP 1, n (%)	15 (7)	3 (4)	12 (9.2)	
ISUP 2, n (%)	84 (41)	33 (44)	51 (39)	
ISUP 3, n (%)	38 (19)	13 (17)	25 (19)	
ISUP 4, n (%)	39 (19)	14 (19)	25 (19)	
ISUP 5, n (%)	29 (14)	12 (16)	17 (13)	
Histopathology RP				
pT2a/b, n (%)	16 (7)	6 (8)	10 (8)	
pT2c, n (%)	100 (49)	35 (47)	65 (50)	
pT3a, n (%)	47 (23)	21 (28)	26 (20)	
pT3b, n (%)	42 (20)	13 (17)	29 (22)	
ISUP 1, n (%)	5 (3)	2 (2.7)	3 (2)	
ISUP 2, n (%)	99 (48)	37 (49)	62 (47)	
ISUP 3, n (%)	54 (26)	26 (35)	28 (22)	
ISUP 4, n (%)	17 (8)	3 (4)	14 (11)	
ISUP 5, n (%)	30 (15)	7 (9.3)	23 (18)	
PI-RADS, highest Score				
PI-RADS III (%)	6 (3.9)	3 (4)	3 (2)	
PI-RADS IV (%)	77 (37)	25 (33)	52 (40)	
PI-RADS V (%)	122 (60)	47 (63)	75 (58)	
IQR = Interquartile range, iPSA = Initial prostate specific antigen, ng = nanogram, ml = milliliter, DRE = Digital rectal examination; ISUP = International Society of Urological Pathology, RP = Radical prostatectomy

Table 2 Patient characteristics according to values of the risk model (predicted pT2 vs. pT3) before RP

Predicted tumor classification	pT ≤ 2c	pT ≥ 3a = EPE	
Site 1, n (%)	41 (55)	34 (45)	
Site 2, n (%)	75 (58)	55 (42)	
Median ESUR classification for EPE (IQR)	3(2–4)	7(4–9)	
Median MRI prostate volume (IQR), ml	40(30.8–54.1)	40(30–60)	
Median iPSA (IQR), ng/ml	8.3(6-11.1)	9.8(7.3–16.3)	
Median CCL on MRI (IQR), mm	10(6–14)	20(14–28)	
Clinical T stage, cT1/2a (%)	111(61)	72(39)	
Clinical T stage, cT2b/c (%)	5(39)	8(61.5)	
Clinical T stage, cT3/4 (%)	0(0)	9(100)	
ISUP 1 in biopsy, n (%)	13(87)	2(13)	
ISUP 2 in biopsy, n (%)	58(69)	26(31)	
ISUP 3 in biopsy, n (%)	23(61)	15(40)	
ISUP 4 in biopsy, n (%)	18(46)	21(54)	
ISUP 5 in biopsy, n (%)	4(14)	25(86)	
n = Number, IQR = Interquartile range, iPSA = Initial prostate specific antigen, ng = nanogram, ml = milliliter, DRE = Digital rectal examination; ISUP = International Society of Urological Pathology, RP = Radical prostatectomy

Second, we assessed the discrimination performance of the ESUR classification for EPE prediction alone. The discrimination performance was comparable to the performance of the RM for the entire cohort (0.87, 95% CI: 0.82–0.91) (Supplemental Table 1). Comparing the AUCs for RM and ESUR alone, no significant difference could be demonstrated (p = 0.75). This was also the case for the subgroups: The ESUR scores` AUC at site 1 was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.81–0.96 DeLong) (Fig. 1A), and 0.86 at site 2 subgroup (95% CI: 0.80–0.92 DeLong) (Fig. 1B).

Calibration plots of the RM (Supplemental Figs. 1, 3) demonstrate that there are no untoward deviations of the predicted from the observed risk of EPE over the entire range at site 1 (Supplemental Fig. 1A) and site 2 (Supplemental Fig. 1B), with slight overestimation of EPE risk in Essen. Despite a good calibration in general, the ESUR classification for EPE alone (Supplemental Figs. 2 and 3) underestimates the observed pathological risk of EPE at higher probabilities of over 25%. However, this observation is only prevalent in the Düsseldorf cohort (Supplemental Fig. 2B) and may be induced by a limited proportion of observed / predicted EPE.

Discussion

The previously described EPE-RM was one of the first approaches combining mpMRI and clinical parameters, including histopathological results from MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy, for a side-specific prediction of EPE in RP specimens [11]. It was now validated on bicentric data from clinical routine.

The quality of MRI for EPE prediction depends on the experience and specialisation of the radiologist, and hence may vary greatly, although standardization and implemented guidelines lead to comparability (with time) [21–23]. Unless the expertise of the radiologist is very high, the risk model may not offer an advantage over MRI findings alone [24]. However, due to the high variance in the field, the RM might offer a way to better assess the risk for EPE. Therefore, the EPE-RM integrated CCL as objectively measured parameter, histopathological data and the standardised ESUR classification as predictors of EPE to increase reproducibility and decrease reader-dependency [11].

When discussing the broad usability of the RM and ESUR, the technical limitations of MRI itself should also be considered. Microscopic EPE is hard to detect on MRI. The detection probability is higher in a 3 Tesla MRI like it was used in the original study as well as in this validation study. Studies have shown that 1.5 Tesla devices provide a slightly lower spatial resolution, which would influence the predictive ability of the risk model [25].

The main result of our analysis is that the RM performs well in two different external validation cohorts with an AUC of 0.86 in the entire cohort. Both cohorts were comparable regarding the prevalence of EPE (site 1 45%, site 2 42%). Our results further support that standardized mpMRI reading is reliable within a RM combining MRI and clinical parameters. This is in line with recent results demonstrating added benefit of MRI in combination with clinical parameters [26]. Baco et al. [27] demonstrated that the CCL on MRI can predict EPE accurately.

However, we also demonstrate a good performance of the ESUR classification alone. The ESUR classification has repeatedly been validated, is reliable for EPE prediction with AUC values up to 0.86, and may attenuate the low sensitivity of MRI [26, 28]. In the original study of Nyarangi-Dix the AUC of the ESUR classification was high with 0.81, but inferior to the EPE-RM [11]. In our validation cohorts, the discrimination of ESUR alone was comparable with AUCs of 0.86–0.87. As a consequence, the RM combining MR including the ESUR classification and clinical parameters did not enhance the accuracy of EPE prediction in this validation cohort with specialist uro-radiologists and a standardized MR reading using the ESUR classification.

Thirdly, we emphasize that the discrimination of the EPE-RM on external validation was high with AUCs of 0.85–0.88, with similar performance as other nomograms published, most of which have AUCs of over 0.80. Differences between them can only be investigated through direct comparisons.

A strength of the present EPE-RM is the individualised risk assessment of EPE. This may be important when planning RP. With the information derived from the EPE-RM, a nerve-sparing approach can be planned in which, for example, an appropriate intraoperative frozen section examination is performed in cases with an increased risk in order to also reduce the rate of positive surgical margins [29, 30].

Our study has limitations. First, prevalence-dependence of the RM limits its generalizability. Transferability to other populations may be limited by the high prevalence of EPE in our subgroups [7, 8]. If the EPE-RM is applied to populations with lower prevalence, the predicted probabilities might be overestimated. Thus, in order to correctly determine the individuals` risk of harbouring EPE, it is mandatory to be aware of the EPE prevalence in the current population (43% in our cohort) to possibly adjust the RMs` intercept. An explanation for the high prevalence might be, that patient with advanced local disease have a higher likelihood of being referred to an academic tertiary referral center. In addition, the guideline-based recommendations for Active Surveillance (AS) are strictly followed in our centres. The EPE-RM has shown a benefit in the original work compared to the ESUR alone. This benefit could not be reproduced by our data suggesting to only apply the ESUR classification to predict EPE, rather than calculating the EPE-RM. One reason for the exceptionally good discriminatory ability of the ESUR classification in our study may be due to the fact that the mpMRIs were (re-)read by highly experienced uro-radiologists. This may have biased the discrimination rate. We also did not assess for interobserver variability for ESUR classification. Nevertheless, advanced risk modelling is complex and should be validated for the own patient population.

Conclusions

On bicenter validation in cohorts at high risk of EPE, the EPE-RM had good discrimination and calibration to predict side-specific EPE. This provides benefit in the decision-making process for patient-tailored radical prostatectomy. However, when standardized ESUR scoring of mpMRI by expert radiologists is performed, the discrimination was comparable.

Author contribution

NE von Ostau Data Collection, Manuscript writing. A Handke Data Collection, Manuscript writing. M Wiesenfarth Statistical Analysis, Manuscript writing. P Albers Manuscript editing. G Antoch Manuscript editing. J Noldus Manuscript editing. H Reis Manuscript editing. M Ingenwerth Manuscript editing. J Peetz Manuscript editing. C Cotalero Manuscript editing, data collection. J Radtke Study concept, Data management, Manuscript editing. B Hadaschik Study concept, Manuscript editing. L Schimmöller Study concept, Data management, Manuscript editing. C Kesch Study concept, Data management, Manuscript editing.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Declarations

Ethical approval

This study protocol was reviewed and approved by the local ethics committee at University Hospital Essen (19-8978-BO) and University Hospital Düsseldorf (2018-227-RetroDEuA) and conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki. The participants provided informed written consent before participating in the study.

Conflict of interest

Nicola Edith von Ostau congress travel expenses Janssen-Cilag GmbH. Analena Elisa Handke no disclosures. Manuel Wiesenfarth no disclosures. Marc Ingenwerth no disclosures. Henning Reis Honoraria: Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Astra-Zeneca, MCI, CHOP GmbH, Sanofi, Boehringer-Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Diaceutics; Advisory boards: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche; travel support: Philips, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb; funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb. Jan Philipp Radtke: Advisory Boards and Consulting for Astellas, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Saegeling Medizintechnik, Bender Gruppe, Dr Wolf, Beckelmann und Partner. Invited speaker for Apogepha, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Philips Invivo. Research Funding: AAA/Novartis, Medical Faculty Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, EAU Research Foundation. Boris Hadaschik: Advisory boards for Astellas, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Bayer, ABX, Lightpoint, Amgen, MSD, Pfizer, Novartis. Invited speaker for Accord, Astellas, Janssen R&D. Honoraria from Uromed. Research funding from AAA/Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and German Research Foundation. Leadership roles for DKG AUO and DGU. Lars Schimmöller no disclosures. Claudia Kesch: Consulting for Apogepha. Invited speaker for Novartis, and Pfizer.Travel support from Janssen R&D, Amgen and Bayer. Research funding from AAA/Novartis, Amgen and Mariana Oncology. All authors declare no conflict of interest regarding this manuscript.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Nicola Edith von Ostau and Analena Elisa Handke contributed equally as first authors.

Lars Schimmöller and Claudia Kesch contributed equally as last authors.
==== Refs
References

1. Wang L Hricak H Kattan MW Chen HN Kuroiwa K Eisenberg HF Prediction of seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer: incremental value of adding endorectal MR imaging to the Kattan nomogram Radiology 2007 242 182 188 10.1148/RADIOL.2421051254 17090712
Wang L, Hricak H, Kattan MW, Chen HN, Kuroiwa K, Eisenberg HF et al (2007) Prediction of seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer: incremental value of adding endorectal MR imaging to the Kattan nomogram. Radiology 242:182–188. 10.1148/RADIOL.242105125417090712
2. Carver BS Bianco FJ Scardino PT Eastham JA Long-term outcome following radical prostatectomy in men with clinical stage T3 prostate cancer J Urol 2006 176 564 568 10.1016/J.JURO.2006.03.093 16813890
Carver BS, Bianco FJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA (2006) Long-term outcome following radical prostatectomy in men with clinical stage T3 prostate cancer. J Urol 176:564–568. 10.1016/J.JURO.2006.03.09316813890
3. Ward JF Slezak JM Blute ML Bergstralh EJ Zincke H Radical prostatectomy for clinically advanced (cT3) prostate cancer since the advent of prostate-specific antigen testing: 15-year outcome BJU Int 2005 95 751 756 10.1111/J.1464-410X.2005.05394.X 15794776
Ward JF, Slezak JM, Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Zincke H (2005) Radical prostatectomy for clinically advanced (cT3) prostate cancer since the advent of prostate-specific antigen testing: 15-year outcome. BJU Int 95:751–756. 10.1111/J.1464-410X.2005.05394.X15794776
4. McClure TD Margolis DJA Reiter RE Sayre JW Thomas MA Nagarajan R Use of MR imaging to determine preservation of the neurovascular bundles at robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy Radiology 2012 262 874 883 10.1148/RADIOL.11103504 22274837
McClure TD, Margolis DJA, Reiter RE, Sayre JW, Thomas MA, Nagarajan R et al (2012) Use of MR imaging to determine preservation of the neurovascular bundles at robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Radiology 262:874–883. 10.1148/RADIOL.1110350422274837
5. Morlacco A Sharma V Viers BR Rangel LJ Carlson RE Froemming AT The incremental role of magnetic resonance imaging for prostate Cancer staging before Radical Prostatectomy Eur Urol 2017 71 701 704 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.015 27576750
Morlacco A, Sharma V, Viers BR, Rangel LJ, Carlson RE, Froemming AT et al (2017) The incremental role of magnetic resonance imaging for prostate Cancer staging before Radical Prostatectomy. Eur Urol 71:701–704. 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.01527576750
6. Graefen M, Haese A, Pichlmeier U, Hammerer PG, Noldus J, Butz K et al (2001) A validated strategy for side specific prediction of Organ confined prostate Cancer: a Tool to select for nerve sparing Radical Prostatectomy. 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)66544-5
7. Steuber T Graefen M Haese A Erbersdobler A Chun FKH Schlom T Validation of a nomogram for prediction of side specific extracapsular extension at radical prostatectomy J Urol 2006 175 939 944 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00342-3 16469587
Steuber T, Graefen M, Haese A, Erbersdobler A, Chun FKH, Schlom T et al (2006) Validation of a nomogram for prediction of side specific extracapsular extension at radical prostatectomy. J Urol 175:939–944. 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00342-316469587
8. Ohori M Kattan MW Koh H Maru N Slawin KM Shariat S Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: a nomogram for staging prostate cancer J Urol 2004 171 1844 1849 10.1097/01.JU.0000121693.05077.3D 15076291
Ohori M, Kattan MW, Koh H, Maru N, Slawin KM, Shariat S et al (2004) Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: a nomogram for staging prostate cancer. J Urol 171:1844–1849. 10.1097/01.JU.0000121693.05077.3D15076291
9. Radtke JP Schwab C Wolf MB Freitag MT Alt CD Kesch C Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and MRI-Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy for Index Tumor detection: correlation with radical Prostatectomy Specimen Eur Urol 2016 70 846 853 10.1016/J.EURURO.2015.12.052 26810346
Radtke JP, Schwab C, Wolf MB, Freitag MT, Alt CD, Kesch C et al (2016) Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and MRI-Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy for Index Tumor detection: correlation with radical Prostatectomy Specimen. Eur Urol 70:846–853. 10.1016/J.EURURO.2015.12.05226810346
10. Baco E Ukimura O Rud E Vlatkovic L Svindland A Aron M Magnetic resonance imaging-transectal ultrasound image-fusion biopsies accurately characterize the index tumor: correlation with step-sectioned radical prostatectomy specimens in 135 patients Eur Urol 2015 67 787 794 10.1016/J.EURURO.2014.08.077 25240973
Baco E, Ukimura O, Rud E, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A, Aron M et al (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging-transectal ultrasound image-fusion biopsies accurately characterize the index tumor: correlation with step-sectioned radical prostatectomy specimens in 135 patients. Eur Urol 67:787–794. 10.1016/J.EURURO.2014.08.07725240973
11. Nyarangi-Dix J Wiesenfarth M Bonekamp D Hitthaler B Schütz V Dieffenbacher S Combined clinical parameters and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the prediction of Extraprostatic Disease—A risk model for patient-tailored risk stratification when planning radical prostatectomy Eur Urol Focus 2020 6 1205 1212 10.1016/j.euf.2018.11.004 30477971
Nyarangi-Dix J, Wiesenfarth M, Bonekamp D, Hitthaler B, Schütz V, Dieffenbacher S et al (2020) Combined clinical parameters and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the prediction of Extraprostatic Disease—A risk model for patient-tailored risk stratification when planning radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus 6:1205–1212. 10.1016/j.euf.2018.11.00430477971
12. Thomsen HS Morcos SK ESUR guidelines on contrast media Abdom Imaging 2006 31 131 140 10.1007/S00261-005-0380-Y/METRICS 16447092
Thomsen HS, Morcos SK (2006) ESUR guidelines on contrast media. Abdom Imaging 31:131–140. 10.1007/S00261-005-0380-Y/METRICS16447092
13. Barentsz JO Richenberg J Clements R Choyke P Verma S Villeirs G ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012 Eur Radiol 2012 22 746 757 10.1007/S00330-011-2377-Y 22322308
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G et al (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22:746–757. 10.1007/S00330-011-2377-Y22322308
14. Giganti F Allen C Emberton M Moore CM Kasivisvanathan V Prostate imaging quality (PI-QUAL): a New Quality Control Scoring System for Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the prostate from the PRECISION trial Eur Urol Oncol 2020 3 615 619 10.1016/J.EUO.2020.06.007 32646850
Giganti F, Allen C, Emberton M, Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V (2020) Prostate imaging quality (PI-QUAL): a New Quality Control Scoring System for Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the prostate from the PRECISION trial. Eur Urol Oncol 3:615–619. 10.1016/J.EUO.2020.06.00732646850
15. Radtke JP, Wiesenfarth M, Kesch C, Freitag MT, Alt CD, Celik K et al (2017) Combined clinical parameters and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Advanced Risk modeling of prostate Cancer—patient-tailored risk stratification can reduce unnecessary biopsies. Eur Urol 72. 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.039
16. Van Calster B Nieboer D Vergouwe Y De Cock B Pencina MJ Steyerberg EW A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data J Clin Epidemiol 2016 74 167 176 10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2015.12.005 26772608
Van Calster B, Nieboer D, Vergouwe Y, De Cock B, Pencina MJ, Steyerberg EW (2016) A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data. J Clin Epidemiol 74:167–176. 10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2015.12.00526772608
17. Brown M, rmda (2023) accessed September 28, : Risk Model Decision Analysis. R package version 1.6 2018. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rmda/index.html
18. Gerds TA, ModelGood (2014) Validation of risk prediction models. R package version 1.0.9, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ModelGood
19. Bossuyt PM Reitsma JB Bruns DE Gatsonis Ca Glasziou PP Irwig LM Towards complete and,accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative Radiology 2003 226 24 28 10.1136/bmj.326.7379.41 12511664
Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis Ca, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM et al (2003) Towards complete and,accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Radiology 226:24–28. 10.1136/bmj.326.7379.4112511664
20. European Society of Urogenital Radiology (2018) ESUR Leitlinien für Kontrastmittel
21. Billing A Buchner A Stief C Roosen A Preoperative mp-MRI of the prostate provides little information about staging of prostate carcinoma in daily clinical practice World J Urol 2015 33 923 928 10.1007/S00345-014-1448-5 25432525
Billing A, Buchner A, Stief C, Roosen A (2015) Preoperative mp-MRI of the prostate provides little information about staging of prostate carcinoma in daily clinical practice. World J Urol 33:923–928. 10.1007/S00345-014-1448-525432525
22. Tay KJ Gupta RT Brown AF Silverman RK Polascik TJ Defining the Incremental Utility of Prostate Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging at Standard and Specialized Read in Predicting Extracapsular extension of prostate Cancer Eur Urol 2016 70 211 213 10.1016/J.EURURO.2015.10.041 26553331
Tay KJ, Gupta RT, Brown AF, Silverman RK, Polascik TJ (2016) Defining the Incremental Utility of Prostate Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging at Standard and Specialized Read in Predicting Extracapsular extension of prostate Cancer. Eur Urol 70:211–213. 10.1016/J.EURURO.2015.10.04126553331
23. Wibmer A Vargas HA Donahue TF Zheng J Moskowitz C Eastham J Diagnosis of Extracapsular extension of prostate Cancer on prostate MRI: impact of second-opinion readings by Subspecialized Genitourinary Oncologic radiologists AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015 205 W73 W78 10.2214/AJR.14.13600 26102421
Wibmer A, Vargas HA, Donahue TF, Zheng J, Moskowitz C, Eastham J et al (2015) Diagnosis of Extracapsular extension of prostate Cancer on prostate MRI: impact of second-opinion readings by Subspecialized Genitourinary Oncologic radiologists. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:W73–W78. 10.2214/AJR.14.1360026102421
24. Quentin M Schimmöller L Ullrich T Valentin B Demetrescu D Al-Monajjed R Pre-operative magnetic resonance imaging can predict prostate cancer with risk for positive surgical margins Abdom Radiol (NY) 2022 47 2486 10.1007/S00261-022-03543-Z 35578110
Quentin M, Schimmöller L, Ullrich T, Valentin B, Demetrescu D, Al-Monajjed R et al (2022) Pre-operative magnetic resonance imaging can predict prostate cancer with risk for positive surgical margins. Abdom Radiol (NY) 47:2486. 10.1007/S00261-022-03543-Z35578110
25. Laader A, Beiderwellen K, Kraff O, Maderwald S, Wrede K, Ladd ME et al (2017) 1.5 versus 3 versus 7 Tesla in abdominal MRI: a comparative study. PLoS ONE 12. 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0187528
26. Radtke JP Hadaschik BA Wolf MB Freitag MT Schwab C Alt C The Impact of Magnetic Resonance Imaging on prediction of Extraprostatic Extension and Prostatectomy Outcome in patients with Low-, Intermediate- and high-risk prostate Cancer: try to find a standard J Endourol 2015 29 1396 1405 10.1089/END.2015.0358 26154571
Radtke JP, Hadaschik BA, Wolf MB, Freitag MT, Schwab C, Alt C et al (2015) The Impact of Magnetic Resonance Imaging on prediction of Extraprostatic Extension and Prostatectomy Outcome in patients with Low-, Intermediate- and high-risk prostate Cancer: try to find a standard. J Endourol 29:1396–1405. 10.1089/END.2015.035826154571
27. Baco E Rud E Vlatkovic L Svindland A Eggesbø HB Hung AJ Predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging determined tumor contact length for extracapsular extension of prostate cancer J Urol 2015 193 466 472 10.1016/J.JURO.2014.08.084 25150643
Baco E, Rud E, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A, Eggesbø HB, Hung AJ et al (2015) Predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging determined tumor contact length for extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. J Urol 193:466–472. 10.1016/J.JURO.2014.08.08425150643
28. Somford DM Hamoen EH Fütterer JJ Van Basten JP Hulsbergen-Van De Kaa CA Vreuls W The predictive value of endorectal 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for extraprostatic extension in patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer J Urol 2013 190 1728 1734 10.1016/J.JURO.2013.05.021 23680307
Somford DM, Hamoen EH, Fütterer JJ, Van Basten JP, Hulsbergen-Van De Kaa CA, Vreuls W et al (2013) The predictive value of endorectal 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for extraprostatic extension in patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. J Urol 190:1728–1734. 10.1016/J.JURO.2013.05.02123680307
29. Schlomm T Tennstedt P Huxhold C Steuber T Salomon G Michl U Neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination (NeuroSAFE) increases nerve-sparing frequency and reduces positive surgical margins in open and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience after 11,069 consecutive patients Eur Urol 2012 62 333 340 10.1016/J.EURURO.2012.04.057 22591631
Schlomm T, Tennstedt P, Huxhold C, Steuber T, Salomon G, Michl U et al (2012) Neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination (NeuroSAFE) increases nerve-sparing frequency and reduces positive surgical margins in open and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience after 11,069 consecutive patients. Eur Urol 62:333–340. 10.1016/J.EURURO.2012.04.05722591631
30. Petralia G Musi G Padhani AR Summers P Renne G Alessi S Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: multiparametric MR imaging-directed intraoperative frozen-section analysis to reduce the rate of positive surgical margins Radiology 2015 274 434 444 10.1148/RADIOL.14140044 25271856
Petralia G, Musi G, Padhani AR, Summers P, Renne G, Alessi S et al (2015) Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: multiparametric MR imaging-directed intraoperative frozen-section analysis to reduce the rate of positive surgical margins. Radiology 274:434–444. 10.1148/RADIOL.1414004425271856
