Literature DB >> 14500276

Visualization of prostate cancer using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: comparison with transrectal power Doppler ultrasound.

H Ito1, K Kamoi, K Yokoyama, K Yamada, T Nishimura.   

Abstract

This study was designed to assess the efficacy of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI), in comparison with power Doppler ultrasound (PDUS), for visualizing prostate cancer. 111 men suspected of having prostate cancer underwent imaging before undergoing octant biopsy. Subsequently, 31 cancer-positive patients were enrolled in this study. DCE-MRI was obtained using a three-dimensional fast-field echo sequence, which assured wide coverage of the prostate gland. The transrectal PDUS were scored according to the degree of power Doppler flow signals. The time intensity curve types for the DCE-MRI and the PDUS scores were compared with the histopathologic results for each region. The time intensity curves were correlated significantly with PDUS scores (p<0.001). Using PDUS, the overall sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of cancer visualization in peripheral zones were 69%, 61% and 66%, respectively. Using DCE-MRI, the corresponding values were 87%, 74% and 82%. In the inner gland, using PDUS, the overall sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 68%, 94% and 83%, respectively. Using DCE-MRI, the corresponding values were similar (68%, 86% and 78%). DCE-MRI was significantly more sensitive than transrectal PDUS in peripheral zones (p<0.05). In conclusion, both transrectal PDUS and DCE-MRI can be used to demonstrate hypervascularity in many prostate cancers. DCE-MRI was significantly more sensitive than PDUS for visualizing of prostate cancers without loss of specificity in the peripheral zone.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14500276     DOI: 10.1259/bjr/52526261

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  18 in total

1.  Prediction of prostate cancer extracapsular extension with high spatial resolution dynamic contrast-enhanced 3-T MRI.

Authors:  B Nicolas Bloch; Elizabeth M Genega; Daniel N Costa; Ivan Pedrosa; Martin P Smith; Herbert Y Kressel; Long Ngo; Martin G Sanda; William C Dewolf; Neil M Rofsky
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-06-03       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Is 11C-choline the most appropriate tracer for prostate cancer? Against.

Authors:  Klaus Zöphel; Jörg Kotzerke
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2004-04-02       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 3.  A comparison of the diagnostic performance of systematic versus ultrasound-guided biopsies of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Stijn W T P J Heijmink; Hilco van Moerkerk; Lambertus A L M Kiemeney; J Alfred Witjes; Ferdinand Frauscher; Jelle O Barentsz
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-01-04       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  Imaging angiogenesis of genitourinary tumors.

Authors:  Ying-Kiat Zee; James P B O'Connor; Geoff J M Parker; Alan Jackson; Andrew R Clamp; M Ben Taylor; Noel W Clarke; Gordon C Jayson
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2010-01-19       Impact factor: 14.432

5.  Determination of the cutoff level of apparent diffusion coefficient values for detection of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Masako Nagayama; Yuji Watanabe; Akito Terai; Tohru Araki; Kenji Notohara; Akira Okumura; Yoshiki Amoh; Takayoshi Ishimori; Satoru Nakashita; Yoshihiro Dodo
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2011-09-01       Impact factor: 2.374

6.  Accuracy of preoperative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of unfavorable pathology in patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Hakmin Lee; Chan Kyo Kim; Byung Kwan Park; Hyun Hwan Sung; Deok Hyun Han; Hwang Gyun Jeon; Byong Chang Jeong; Seong Il Seo; Seong Soo Jeon; Han Yong Choi; Hyun Moo Lee
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Biexponential characterization of prostate tissue water diffusion decay curves over an extended b-factor range.

Authors:  Robert V Mulkern; Agnieszka Szot Barnes; Steven J Haker; Yin P Hung; Frank J Rybicki; Stephan E Maier; Clare M C Tempany
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2006-02-20       Impact factor: 2.546

8.  Regional-Level Correlations in Inappropriate Imaging Rates for Prostate and Breast Cancers: Potential Implications for the Choosing Wisely Campaign.

Authors:  Danil V Makarov; Pamela R Soulos; Heather T Gold; James B Yu; Sounok Sen; Joseph S Ross; Cary P Gross
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 31.777

9.  The role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in prostate cancer imaging and staging at 1.5 and 3 Tesla: the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) approach.

Authors:  B Nicolas Bloch; Robert E Lenkinski; Neil M Rofsky
Journal:  Cancer Biomark       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.388

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.