Literature DB >> 15273337

Prostate cancer: gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging at 3 weeks compared with needle biopsy at 6 months after cryoablation.

Sarah E Donnelly1, Bryan J Donnelly, John C Saliken, Earl L Raber, A Dale Vellet.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine if nonenhancing tissue on gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) images obtained 3 weeks after cryoablation of the prostate helps reliably and accurately predict nonviable cryoablated tissue at 6-month biopsy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-four consecutive patients with prostate cancer who underwent cryoablation were followed up prospectively. Fifty-one underwent gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging at 3 weeks (three had gadolinium allergy); 49, biopsy at 6 months (three refused and two had other primary malignancies); and all, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests at 6 weeks, 3 months, and every 3 months thereafter. MR images were evaluated and scored according to the degree of signal void and were correlated with the 6-month biopsy reports and, to a lesser degree, PSA levels. The biopsy reports were examined for the presence or absence of cancerous tissue, viable tissue, and nonviable tissue. A one-way analysis of variance was used for statistical and regression analyses.
RESULTS: The correlation of MR imaging scores with PSA levels and MR imaging scores with biopsy findings resulted in P values of.337 and.780, respectively. A slight statistically significant trend existed for the relation of biopsy results with PSA levels, with a P value of.041, which was expected.
CONCLUSION: Findings of postoperative gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging are not predictive of 6-month biopsy results or follow-up PSA levels. Copyright RSNA, 2004

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15273337     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2323030841

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


  6 in total

1.  Use of MRI for Lobar Classification of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Potential Phenotypic Biomarkers for Research on Treatment Strategies.

Authors:  Neil F Wasserman; Benjamin Spilseth; Jafar Golzarian; Gregory J Metzger
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 2.  MR imaging of treated prostate cancer.

Authors:  Hebert Alberto Vargas; Cecilia Wassberg; Oguz Akin; Hedvig Hricak
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 3.  Role of imaging and biopsy to assess local recurrence after definitive treatment for prostate carcinoma (surgery, radiotherapy, cryotherapy, HIFU).

Authors:  Pasquale Martino; Vincenzo Scattoni; Andrea B Galosi; Paolo Consonni; Carlo Trombetta; Silvano Palazzo; Carmen Maccagnano; Giovanni Liguori; Massimo Valentino; Michele Battaglia; Libero Barozzi
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-05-08       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  The role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in focal therapy for prostate cancer: recommendations from a consensus panel.

Authors:  Berrend G Muller; Jurgen J Fütterer; Rajan T Gupta; Aaron Katz; Alexander Kirkham; John Kurhanewicz; Judd W Moul; Peter A Pinto; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Cary Robertson; Jean de la Rosette; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; J Stephen Jones; Osamu Ukimura; Sadhna Verma; Hessel Wijkstra; Michael Marberger
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2013-11-13       Impact factor: 5.588

5.  Thermostability of biological systems: fundamentals, challenges, and quantification.

Authors:  Xiaoming He
Journal:  Open Biomed Eng J       Date:  2011-04-12

Review 6.  Multi-parametric MRI imaging of the prostate-implications for focal therapy.

Authors:  James S Wysock; Herbert Lepor
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2017-06
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.