Literature DB >> 16344335

Prediction of organ-confined prostate cancer: incremental value of MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging to staging nomograms.

Liang Wang1, Hedvig Hricak, Michael W Kattan, Hui-Ni Chen, Peter T Scardino, Kentaro Kuroiwa.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess retrospectively the incremental value of endorectal coil magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and combined endorectal MR imaging-MR spectroscopic imaging to the staging nomograms for predicting organ-confined prostate cancer (OCPC).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board approved this HIPAA-compliant study and issued a waiver of informed consent for review of the MR reports and clinical data. Between November 1, 1999, and November 1, 2004, 229 patients underwent endorectal MR imaging and 383 underwent combined endorectal MR imaging-MR spectroscopic imaging before radical prostatectomy. Mean patient age was 58 years (range, 32-74 years). MR studies were interpreted prospectively by 12 radiologists who were informed of patients' clinical data. On the basis of the MR reports, the risks of extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, and lymph node metastasis were scored retrospectively from 1 to 5; the highest score was subtracted from 6 to determine a score (from 1 to 5) for the likelihood of OCPC on MR studies. The staging nomograms were used to calculate the likelihood of OCPC on the basis of serum prostate-specific antigen level, Gleason grade at biopsy, and clinical stage. Histopathologic findings constituted the reference standard. Logistic regression was used to estimate the multivariable relations between OCPC and MR findings. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve was calculated for each model. The jackknife method was used for bias correction.
RESULTS: MR findings contributed significant incremental value (P </= .02) to the nomograms in the overall study population. The contribution of MR findings was significant in all risk groups but was greatest in the intermediate- and high-risk groups (P < .01 for both). Accuracy in the prediction of OCPC with MR was higher when MR spectroscopic imaging was used, but the difference was not significant.
CONCLUSION: Endorectal MR imaging and combined endorectal MR imaging-MR spectroscopic imaging contribute significant incremental value to the staging nomograms in predicting OCPC. (c) RSNA, 2005

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16344335     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2382041905

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


  73 in total

1.  Preoperative nomograms incorporating magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Amita Shukla-Dave; Hedvig Hricak; Oguz Akin; Changhong Yu; Kristen L Zakian; Kazuma Udo; Peter T Scardino; James Eastham; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-09-20       Impact factor: 5.588

2.  Prostate cancer managed with active surveillance: role of anatomic MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging.

Authors:  Vincent Fradet; John Kurhanewicz; Janet E Cowan; Alexander Karl; Fergus V Coakley; Katsuto Shinohara; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-05-26       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy of prostate cancer.

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

Review 4.  Is it time to consider a role for MRI before prostate biopsy?

Authors:  Hashim U Ahmed; Alex Kirkham; Manit Arya; Rowland Illing; Alex Freeman; Clare Allen; Mark Emberton
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 66.675

5.  Added Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Clinical Nomograms for Predicting Adverse Pathology in Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Kareem N Rayn; Jonathan B Bloom; Samuel A Gold; Graham R Hale; Joseph A Baiocco; Sherif Mehralivand; Marcin Czarniecki; Vikram K Sabarwal; Vladimir Valera; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2018-05-29       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 6.  Formalized prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer: is it possible?

Authors:  Carvell T Nguyen; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2012-02-27       Impact factor: 3.285

7.  Updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason score (Partin tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005.

Authors:  Danil V Makarov; Bruce J Trock; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Leslie A Mangold; Patrick C Walsh; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 2.649

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

9.  Modalities for imaging of prostate cancer.

Authors:  A H Hou; D Swanson; A B Barqawi
Journal:  Adv Urol       Date:  2010-03-17

10.  Focal treatment of prostate cancer with vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy.

Authors:  Scott E Eggener; Jonathan A Coleman
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2008-10-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.