Literature DB >> 15564406

Prostate depiction at endorectal MR spectroscopic imaging: investigation of a standardized evaluation system.

Juyoung A Jung1, Fergus V Coakley, Daniel B Vigneron, Mark G Swanson, Aliya Qayyum, Vivian Weinberg, Kirk D Jones, Peter R Carroll, John Kurhanewicz.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate the accuracy and interobserver variability of a standardized evaluation system for endorectal three-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance (MR) spectroscopic imaging of the prostate.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The human research committee approved the study, and all patients provided written informed consent. Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging were performed in 37 patients before they underwent radical prostatectomy. For the 22 patients with good or excellent MR spectroscopic imaging data, step-section histopathologic tumor maps were used to identify spectroscopic voxels of unequivocally benign (n = 306) or malignant (n = 81) peripheral zone tissue. Two independent spectroscopists, unaware of all other findings, scored the spectra of the selected voxels by using a scale of 1 (benign) to 5 (malignant) that was based on standardized metabolic criteria. Descriptive statistical, receiver operating characteristics (ROC), and kappa statistical analyses of the data obtained by both readers were performed by using two definitions of cancer: one based on a voxel score of 3-5 and the other based on a score of 4 or 5.
RESULTS: The scoring system had good accuracy (74.2%-85.0%) in the differentiation between benign and malignant tissue voxels, with areas under the ROC curve of 0.89 for reader 1 and 0.87 for reader 2. Specificities of 84.6% and 89.3% were achieved when a voxel score of 4 or 5 was used to identify cancer, and sensitivities of 90% and 93% were achieved when a score of 3-5 was used to identify cancer. Readers demonstrated excellent interobserver agreement (kappa values, 0.79 and 0.80).
CONCLUSION: The good accuracy and excellent interobserver agreement achieved by using the standardized five-point scale to interpret peripheral zone metabolism demonstrate the potential effectiveness of using metabolic information to identify prostate cancer, and the clinical usefulness of this system warrants testing in prospective clinical trials of MR imaging combined with MR spectroscopic imaging. (c) RSNA, 2004.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15564406     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2333030672

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


  51 in total

1.  Differentiation of benign and malignant uterine corpus tumors by using proton MR spectroscopy at 3T: preliminary study.

Authors:  Mayumi Takeuchi; Kenji Matsuzaki; Masafumi Harada
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-10-03       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ethan J Halpern
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2006

3.  Magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Peter R Carroll; Fergus V Coakley; John Kurhanewicz
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2006

4.  Preliminary observations and clinical value of N-acetyl resonances in ovarian tumours using in-vivo proton MR spectroscopy at 3T.

Authors:  Mayumi Takeuchi; Kenji Matsuzaki; Masafumi Harada
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-08-05       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 5.  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

6.  A hierarchical spectral clustering and nonlinear dimensionality reduction scheme for detection of prostate cancer from magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS).

Authors:  Pallavi Tiwari; Mark Rosen; Anant Madabhushi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 7.  Optimization of prostate biopsy: the role of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in detection, localization and risk assessment.

Authors:  Marc A Bjurlin; Xiaosong Meng; Julien Le Nobin; James S Wysock; Herbert Lepor; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Samir S Taneja
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2014-04-21       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  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

Review 9.  Combined magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Martin Umbehr; Lucas M Bachmann; Ulrike Held; Thomas M Kessler; Tullio Sulser; Dominik Weishaupt; John Kurhanewicz; Johann Steurer
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2008-10-18       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 10.  Diffusion-weighted imaging with apparent diffusion coefficient mapping and spectroscopy in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Michael A Jacobs; Ronald Ouwerkerk; Kyle Petrowski; Katarzyna J Macura
Journal:  Top Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2008-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.