PURPOSE: To retrospectively investigate size criteria for the identification of chance-detected lesions at endorectal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Approval of the committee on human research and written informed consent were obtained. This study was HIPAA compliant. Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging were performed with a 1.5-T MR imager in 48 men with a mean age of 59 years (age range, 47-75 years) prior to radical prostatectomy. Two independent readers recorded the size and location of all suspected peripheral zone tumor nodules on MR images alone and on images obtained with combined MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging. Nodules detected at MR imaging were classified as matched lesions if tumor was present in the same location at step-section histopathologic review. For all matched lesions, kappa values were calculated to examine agreement between measured and actual tumor size. Lesions that were overmeasured at MR imaging with a kappa value of less than 0.2 were considered chance-detected lesions. RESULTS: At MR imaging, two of 27 and four of 35 matched lesions for readers 1 and 2, respectively, were chance-detected lesions. The corresponding numbers of lesions at combined MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging were one of 21 and one of 31, respectively. In all but two cases, the measured diameter of chance-detected lesions was more than twice that of the diameter at histopathologic analysis. By using this diameter threshold to distinguish true-positive results, the mean diameter of detected tumors at histopathologic analysis was 15 mm compared with 4 mm for both undetected and chance-detected tumors (P < .05). CONCLUSION: To ensure uniformity in the comparison of scientific studies, peripheral zone tumors detected at MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging of the prostate that are in the same location as tumors detected at histopathologic review should be considered chance-detected lesions if the MR transverse diameter is more than twice the histopathologic transverse diameter. RSNA, 2006.
PURPOSE: To retrospectively investigate size criteria for the identification of chance-detected lesions at endorectal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Approval of the committee on human research and written informed consent were obtained. This study was HIPAA compliant. Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging were performed with a 1.5-T MR imager in 48 men with a mean age of 59 years (age range, 47-75 years) prior to radical prostatectomy. Two independent readers recorded the size and location of all suspected peripheral zone tumor nodules on MR images alone and on images obtained with combined MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging. Nodules detected at MR imaging were classified as matched lesions if tumor was present in the same location at step-section histopathologic review. For all matched lesions, kappa values were calculated to examine agreement between measured and actual tumor size. Lesions that were overmeasured at MR imaging with a kappa value of less than 0.2 were considered chance-detected lesions. RESULTS: At MR imaging, two of 27 and four of 35 matched lesions for readers 1 and 2, respectively, were chance-detected lesions. The corresponding numbers of lesions at combined MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging were one of 21 and one of 31, respectively. In all but two cases, the measured diameter of chance-detected lesions was more than twice that of the diameter at histopathologic analysis. By using this diameter threshold to distinguish true-positive results, the mean diameter of detected tumors at histopathologic analysis was 15 mm compared with 4 mm for both undetected and chance-detected tumors (P < .05). CONCLUSION: To ensure uniformity in the comparison of scientific studies, peripheral zone tumors detected at MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging of the prostate that are in the same location as tumors detected at histopathologic review should be considered chance-detected lesions if the MR transverse diameter is more than twice the histopathologic transverse diameter. RSNA, 2006.
Authors: Rulon L Hardman; Fadi El-Merhi; Adam J Jung; Steve Ware; Ian M Thompson; Harry T Friel; Qi Peng Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Mekhail Anwar; Antonio C Westphalen; Adam J Jung; Susan M Noworolski; Jeffry P Simko; John Kurhanewicz; Mack Roach; Peter R Carroll; Fergus V Coakley Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Shilpa R Kumbhani; Fergus V Coakley; Charles E McCulloch; Z Jane Wang; John Kurhanewicz; Mack Roach; Antonio C Westphalen Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Oguz Akin; Christopher C Riedl; Nicole M Ishill; Chaya S Moskowitz; Jingbo Zhang; Hedvig Hricak Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Stephanie T Chang; Antonio C Westphalen; Priyanka Jha; Adam J Jung; Peter R Carroll; John Kurhanewicz; Fergus V Coakley Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-05-16 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Jeffrey C Weinreb; Jeffrey D Blume; Fergus V Coakley; Thomas M Wheeler; Jean B Cormack; Christopher K Sotto; Haesun Cho; Akira Kawashima; Clare M Tempany-Afdhal; Katarzyna J Macura; Mark Rosen; Scott R Gerst; John Kurhanewicz Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 11.105