PURPOSE: To establish the additional value of MR Spectroscopy (3D CSI MRS Three-dimensional Chemical Shift Imaging Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy) to endorectal MR in the diagnosis and grading of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MR and 3D CSI MR spectroscopy were performed in 53 patients with suspicion of prostate cancer on the basis of rectal exploration and/or transrectal ultrasound and/or the PSA levels. All the examinations were performed with a 1.5 T imager using an endorectal coil. We acquired axial and coronal T2-weighted FSE sequences, axial T1-weighted SE sequences and PRESS 3D CSI (Point Resolved Spectroscopy 3D Chemical Shift Imaging) sequences localized on the axial T2 images so as to include the prostatic gland while excluding the periprostatic fat. The MR examinations were evaluated by two radiologists unaware of the clinical data, transrectal ultrasound findings, PSA levels and histological findings. The MR and 3D CSI MRS findings were compared with the biopsy findings in 22 cases and with material obtained from laparoscopic prostatectomy in 31 cases. RESULTS: The histological examination revealed adenocarcinoma in 37 cases, prostatitis in 2 cases and no alterations in the remaining 14 cases. The morphologic MR scan showed a sensitivity of 76%, a specificity of 56%, an accuracy of 70%, a PPV of 80% and a NPV of 50%. By combining MR and 3D CSI MRS we obtained a sensitivity of 95%, a specificity of 81%, an accuracy of 91%, a PPV of 92% and a NPV of 87%. Elevated choline concentrations were found both in tumours with a low Gleason score (18 cases) and in those with a high Gleason score (19 cases); instead we found markedly reduced (n=9) or absent (n=4) citrate only in the tumours with a high Gleason score, while we found normal citrate levels in the 18 tumours with a low Gleason score. CONCLUSIONS: The 3D CSI MRS improved the reliability of endorectal MR in the diagnosis and characterisation of prostatic cancer. Moreover, the 3D CSI MRS findings demonstrated a linear correlation with tumour grade.
PURPOSE: To establish the additional value of MR Spectroscopy (3D CSI MRS Three-dimensional Chemical Shift Imaging Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy) to endorectal MR in the diagnosis and grading of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MR and 3D CSI MR spectroscopy were performed in 53 patients with suspicion of prostate cancer on the basis of rectal exploration and/or transrectal ultrasound and/or the PSA levels. All the examinations were performed with a 1.5 T imager using an endorectal coil. We acquired axial and coronal T2-weighted FSE sequences, axial T1-weighted SE sequences and PRESS 3D CSI (Point Resolved Spectroscopy 3D Chemical Shift Imaging) sequences localized on the axial T2 images so as to include the prostatic gland while excluding the periprostatic fat. The MR examinations were evaluated by two radiologists unaware of the clinical data, transrectal ultrasound findings, PSA levels and histological findings. The MR and 3D CSI MRS findings were compared with the biopsy findings in 22 cases and with material obtained from laparoscopic prostatectomy in 31 cases. RESULTS: The histological examination revealed adenocarcinoma in 37 cases, prostatitis in 2 cases and no alterations in the remaining 14 cases. The morphologic MR scan showed a sensitivity of 76%, a specificity of 56%, an accuracy of 70%, a PPV of 80% and a NPV of 50%. By combining MR and 3D CSI MRS we obtained a sensitivity of 95%, a specificity of 81%, an accuracy of 91%, a PPV of 92% and a NPV of 87%. Elevated choline concentrations were found both in tumours with a low Gleason score (18 cases) and in those with a high Gleason score (19 cases); instead we found markedly reduced (n=9) or absent (n=4) citrate only in the tumours with a high Gleason score, while we found normal citrate levels in the 18 tumours with a low Gleason score. CONCLUSIONS: The 3D CSI MRS improved the reliability of endorectal MR in the diagnosis and characterisation of prostatic cancer. Moreover, the 3D CSI MRS findings demonstrated a linear correlation with tumour grade.
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
Authors: M Albert Thomas; Thomas Lange; S Sendhil Velan; Rajakumar Nagarajan; Steve Raman; Ana Gomez; Daniel Margolis; Stephany Swart; Raymond R Raylman; Rolf F Schulte; Peter Boesiger Journal: MAGMA Date: 2008-07-17 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: K R Keshari; H Tsachres; R Iman; L Delos Santos; Z L Tabatabai; K Shinohara; D B Vigneron; J Kurhanewicz Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Antonio C Westphalen; Walter J Koff; Fergus V Coakley; Valdair F Muglia; John M Neuhaus; Ralph T Marcus; John Kurhanewicz; Rebecca Smith-Bindman Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-08-24 Impact factor: 11.105
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