Literature DB >> 11218019

The value of endorectal MR imaging to predict positive biopsies in clinically intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients.

J C Vilanova1, J Comet, A Capdevila, J Barceló, J L Dolz, M Huguet, C Barceló, J Aldomà, E Delgado.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of endorectal MR imaging in predicting the positive biopsy results in patients with clinically intermediate risk for prostate cancer. We performed a prospective endorectal MR imaging study with 81 patients at intermediate risk to detect prostate cancer between January 1997 and December 1998. Intermediate risk was defined as: prostatic specific antigen (PSA) levels between 4 and 10 ng/ml or PSA levels in the range of 10-20 ng/ml but negative digital rectal examination (DRE) or PSA levels progressively higher (0.75 ng/ml year(-1)). A transrectal sextant biopsy was performed after the endorectal MR exam, and also of the area of suspicion detected by MR imaging. The accuracies were measured, both singly for MR imaging and combined for PSA level and DRE, by calculating the area index of the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve. Cancer was detected in 23 patients (28%). Overall sensitivity and specificity of endorectal MRI was 70 and 76%, respectively. Accuracy was 71% estimated from the area under the ROC curve for the total patient group and 84% for the group of patients with PSA level between 10-20 ng/ml. Positive biopsy rate (PBR) was 63% for the group with PSA 10-20 ng/ml and a positive MR imaging, and 15% with a negative MR exam. The PBR was 43% for the group with PSA 4-10 ng/ml and a positive MR study, and 13% with a negative MR imaging examination. We would have avoided 63% of negative biopsies, while missing 30% of cancers for the total group of patients. Endorectal MR imaging was not a sufficient predictor of positive biopsies for patients clinically at intermediate risk for prostate cancer. Although we should not avoid performing systematic biopsies in patients with endorectal MR imaging negative results, as it will miss a significant number of cancers, selected patients with a PSA levels between 10-20 ng/ml or clinical-biopsy disagreement might benefit from endorectal MR imaging.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11218019     DOI: 10.1007/s003300000616

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  9 in total

1.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the prostate: is this the way to proceed for characterization of prostatic carcinoma?

Authors:  R H Oyen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  MR-compatible assistance system for punction in a high-field system: device and feasibility of transgluteal biopsies of the prostate gland.

Authors:  Stephan Zangos; Christopher Herzog; Katrin Eichler; Renate Hammerstingl; Andreas Lukoschek; Stefanie Guthmann; Bernd Gutmann; Uwe Joseph Schoepf; Phillip Costello; Thomas J Vogl
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-10-10       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Role of magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging ([¹H]MRSI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) in identifying prostate cancer foci in patients with negative biopsy and high levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA).

Authors:  V Panebianco; A Sciarra; M Ciccariello; D Lisi; S Bernardo; S Cattarino; V Gentile; R Passariello
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2010-09-17       Impact factor: 3.469

4.  The performance of PI-RADSv2 and quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient for predicting confirmatory prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Stephanie Nougaret; Nicola Robertson; Jennifer Golia Pernicka; Nicolas Molinari; Andreas M Hötker; Behfar Ehdaie; Evis Sala; Hedvig Hricak; Hebert Alberto Vargas
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2017-07

5.  Prostate biopsy in the supine position in a standard 1.5-T scanner under real time MR-imaging control using a MR-compatible endorectal biopsy device.

Authors:  K Engelhard; H P Hollenbach; B Kiefer; A Winkel; K Goeb; D Engehausen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-02-01       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 6.  Contemporary issues in the diagnosis of prostate cancer for the radiologist.

Authors:  Richard Clements
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-04-01       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  MR-guided transgluteal biopsies with an open low-field system in patients with clinically suspected prostate cancer: technique and preliminary results.

Authors:  Stephan Zangos; Katrin Eichler; Kerstin Engelmann; Mukhtiar Ahmed; Sebastian Dettmer; Christopher Herzog; Wasilios Pegios; A Wetter; Thomas Lehnert; Martin G Mack; Thomas J Vogl
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-09-04       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 8.  MRI-targeted prostate biopsy: a review of technique and results.

Authors:  Nicola L Robertson; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-09-24       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 9.  Role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in early detection of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Pieter J L De Visschere; Alberto Briganti; Jurgen J Fütterer; Pirus Ghadjar; Hendrik Isbarn; Christophe Massard; Piet Ost; Prasanna Sooriakumaran; Cristian I Surcel; Massimo Valerio; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Guillaume Ploussard; Gianluca Giannarini; Geert M Villeirs
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2016-02-04
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.