Literature DB >> 15826747

Negative prostatic biopsies in patients with a high risk of prostate cancer. Is the combination of endorectal MRI and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging (MRSI) a useful tool? A preliminary study.

Delphine Amsellem-Ouazana1, Patrick Younes, Sophie Conquy, Mickaël Peyromaure, Thierry Flam, Bernard Debré, Marc Zerbib.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Repeated biopsies in patients with a high risk of prostate cancer only allow a small proportion of new cancer diagnosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of combined MRI and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging (MRSI) for these patients.
METHODS: Between April 2003 and April 2004, 42 patients with negative multiple cores prostatic biopsies and serum PSA>4 ng/ml underwent a combined MRI/MRSI analysis. Suspicious zones on standard MRI included low intensity signals on T2 weighted images. A high choline+creatine-to-citrate ratio defined a MRSI suspicious zone. A 10 cores following peripheral biopsy scheme was done to which were added supplementary biopsies on the MRI/MRSI suspicious zones.
RESULTS: The mean age was 62.3 years (51-74), the mean pre-biopsy serum PSA was 12 (3.87-35), the mean free/total PSA ratio was 11% (5-20). The mean number of previous prostate biopsy rounds was 2.04. 15 prostate cancers were diagnosed (35.7%). In 9 cases, abnormal MRI/MRSI findings and positive biopsy sites were located on the same prostatic zones. In 5 cases, MRSI alone located the positive biopsy zones. Sensitivity of combined MRI/MRSI in this study was 73.3%; specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy were 96.3%, 91.6%, 86.6% and 88% respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study shows that the combination of MRI and MRSI might be able to guide and therefore limit the number of iterative biopsies and cores for patients who are at high risk of having a prostate cancer. In some cases, MRSI alone allows identification of neoplasic prostatic zones. Other studies are needed to confirm these data.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15826747     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.01.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  24 in total

1.  MRI-guided prostate biopsy detects clinically significant cancer: analysis of a cohort of 100 patients after previous negative TRUS biopsy.

Authors:  M Roethke; A G Anastasiadis; M Lichy; M Werner; P Wagner; S Kruck; Claus D Claussen; A Stenzl; H P Schlemmer; D Schilling
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-04-22       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 2.  Screening and Detection of Prostate Cancer-Review of Literature and Current Perspective.

Authors:  Ananthakrishnan Sivaraman; Kulthe Ramesh Seetharam Bhat
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2017-01-23

3.  Value of 11C-choline PET and PET/CT in patients with suspected prostate cancer.

Authors:  Bernhard Scher; Michael Seitz; Wolfram Albinger; Reinhold Tiling; Michael Scherr; Hans-Christoph Becker; Michael Souvatzogluou; Franz-Josef Gildehaus; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Stefan Dresel
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2006-08-24       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 4.  [Imaging modalities for primary diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer].

Authors:  U G Mueller-Lisse; K Miller
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 5.  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

6.  Initial clinical experience with real-time transrectal ultrasonography-magnetic resonance imaging fusion-guided prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Anurag K Singh; Jochen Kruecker; Sheng Xu; Neil Glossop; Peter Guion; Karen Ullman; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2007-12-05       Impact factor: 5.588

7.  Diagnosis of relevant prostate cancer using supplementary cores from magnetic resonance imaging-prompted areas following multiple failed biopsies.

Authors:  Daniel N Costa; B Nicolas Bloch; David F Yao; Martin G Sanda; Long Ngo; Elizabeth M Genega; Ivan Pedrosa; William C DeWolf; Neil M Rofsky
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2013-04-18       Impact factor: 2.546

Review 8.  MR imaging of the prostate in clinical practice.

Authors:  Yousef Mazaheri; Amita Shukla-Dave; Ada Muellner; Hedvig Hricak
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2008-09-16       Impact factor: 2.310

9.  Discovery and validation of urinary biomarkers for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Dan Theodorescu; Eric Schiffer; Hartwig W Bauer; Friedrich Douwes; Frank Eichhorn; Reinhard Polley; Thomas Schmidt; Wolfgang Schöfer; Petra Zürbig; David M Good; Joshua J Coon; Harald Mischak
Journal:  Proteomics Clin Appl       Date:  2008-03-07       Impact factor: 3.494

10.  [Imaging procedures to diagnose prostate cancer].

Authors:  M Seitz; B Scher; M Scherr; D Tilki; B Schlenker; C Gratzke; A Schipf; P Stanislaus; U Müller-Lisse; O Reich; C Stief
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 0.639

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.