Literature DB >> 12202702

Patients with a history of elevated prostate-specific antigen levels and negative transrectal US-guided quadrant or sextant biopsy results: value of MR imaging.

Dirk Beyersdorff1, Matthias Taupitz, Bjoern Winkelmann, Thomas Fischer, Severin Lenk, Stefan A Loening, Bernd Hamm.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the role of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging performed with a combined endorectal body phased-array coil for patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels or suspicious free-to-total PSA ratios in whom prior transrectal ultrasonographically (US) guided biopsy findings were negative for prostate cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-four patients with PSA levels greater than 4 ng/mL or free-to-total PSA ratios lower than 15% but negative biopsy findings were examined with T1- and T2-weighted MR imaging at 1.5 T with a combined endorectal body phased-array coil. All patients underwent digital rectal examination (DRE) and transrectal US. Thirty-eight patients underwent repeat biopsy after MR imaging. The accuracy of MR imaging for detection of prostate cancer was assessed prospectively. Retrospectively, MR imaging findings were correlated with individual biopsy site findings. MR imaging and biopsy results were correlated by using a cross table to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV). Retrospective analysis results were evaluated with receiver operating characteristic analysis. A P value of less than.05 indicated significance (chi(2) test according to Pearson).
RESULTS: At prospective analysis, MR imaging had a sensitivity of 83% and a PPV of 50% for detection of prostate cancer; these values were 33% and 67%, respectively, for DRE and 33% and 57%, respectively, for transrectal US. At retrospective site-by-site analysis, MR imaging results did not correlate significantly with individual biopsy site findings (P =.126); sensitivity was 65% and PPV was 12%.
CONCLUSION: In this patient population, MR imaging has higher sensitivity for detection of prostate cancer than DRE or transrectal US. Copyright RSNA, 2002

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12202702     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2243011553

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  36 in total

Review 1.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and pharmacokinetic models in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Tobias Franiel; Bernd Hamm; Hedvig Hricak
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-12-24       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Reproducibility of image interpretation in MRI of the prostate: application of the sextant framework by two different radiologists.

Authors:  Ullrich Mueller-Lisse; Ulrike Mueller-Lisse; Juergen Scheidler; Gerhardt Klein; Maximilian Reiser
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-04-20       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  [MR techniques for noninvasive diagnosis of prostate cancer].

Authors:  N Morakkabati-Spitz; P J Bastian; A Meissner; F Träber; J Gieseke; H H Schild; S C Müller
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 0.639

4.  Prostate biopsy: targeting cancer for detection and therapy.

Authors:  Samir S Taneja
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2006

5.  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

Review 6.  Is it time to consider a role for MRI before prostate biopsy?

Authors:  Hashim U Ahmed; Alex Kirkham; Manit Arya; Rowland Illing; Alex Freeman; Clare Allen; Mark Emberton
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 7.  Image-guided robotic interventions for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ashwin N Sridhar; Archie Hughes-Hallett; Erik K Mayer; Philip J Pratt; Philip J Edwards; Guang-Zhong Yang; Ara W Darzi; Justin A Vale
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-06-18       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 8.  Role of magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging before and after radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Antonio C Westphalen; David A McKenna; John Kurhanewicz; Fergus V Coakley
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 2.942

9.  [Imaging diagnostics of the prostate].

Authors:  D J Dinter; A M Weidner; F Wenz; A E Pelzer; M S Michel; S O Schoenberg
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 0.639

10.  Modalities for imaging of prostate cancer.

Authors:  A H Hou; D Swanson; A B Barqawi
Journal:  Adv Urol       Date:  2010-03-17
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.