PURPOSE: To determine whether the combination of diffusion-weighted (DW) and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI provides higher diagnostic sensitivity for prostate cancer than each technique alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen patients with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer underwent endorectal MRI on a 1.5T scanner prior to transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies. The average values of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC, calculated from b-values of 0 and 600), K(trans), v(e), maximum gadolinium (Gd) concentration, onset time, mean gradient, and maximum enhancement were determined. Correlation with histology was based on biopsy (six patients) and prostatectomy specimen (eight patients) results. The Tukey-Kramer test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The average values of all MRI parameters, except v(e) and maximum Gd concentration, showed significant differences between tumor and normal prostate. The sensitivity and specificity values were respectively 54% (35-72%) and 100% (95-100%) for the ADC data, and 59% (39-77%) and 74% (63-83%) for the DCE data. When both ADC and DCE results were combined, the sensitivity increased to 87% (68-95%) and specificity decreased to 74% (62-83%). CONCLUSION: All but two DW- and DCE-MRI parameters showed significant differences between tumor and normal prostate. Combining both techniques provides better sensitivity, with a small decrease in specificity. (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
PURPOSE: To determine whether the combination of diffusion-weighted (DW) and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI provides higher diagnostic sensitivity for prostate cancer than each technique alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen patients with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer underwent endorectal MRI on a 1.5T scanner prior to transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies. The average values of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC, calculated from b-values of 0 and 600), K(trans), v(e), maximum gadolinium (Gd) concentration, onset time, mean gradient, and maximum enhancement were determined. Correlation with histology was based on biopsy (six patients) and prostatectomy specimen (eight patients) results. The Tukey-Kramer test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The average values of all MRI parameters, except v(e) and maximum Gd concentration, showed significant differences between tumor and normal prostate. The sensitivity and specificity values were respectively 54% (35-72%) and 100% (95-100%) for the ADC data, and 59% (39-77%) and 74% (63-83%) for the DCE data. When both ADC and DCE results were combined, the sensitivity increased to 87% (68-95%) and specificity decreased to 74% (62-83%). CONCLUSION: All but two DW- and DCE-MRI parameters showed significant differences between tumor and normal prostate. Combining both techniques provides better sensitivity, with a small decrease in specificity. (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Piotr Kozlowski; Silvia D Chang; Ran Meng; Burkhard Mädler; Robert Bell; Edward C Jones; S Larry Goldenberg Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-04-13 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Bryn Drew; Edward C Jones; Stefan Reinsberg; Andrew C Yung; S Larry Goldenberg; Piotr Kozlowski Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Uulke A van der Heide; Antonetta C Houweling; Greetje Groenendaal; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Philippe Lambin Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-07-06 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Carlos F Uribe; Edward C Jones; Silvia D Chang; S Larry Goldenberg; Stefan A Reinsberg; Piotr Kozlowski Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-02-24 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Luca F Valle; Matthew D Greer; Joanna H Shih; Tristan Barrett; Yan Mee Law; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Haytham Shebel; Akhil Muthigi; Daniel Su; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Andra V Krauze; Aradhana Kaushal; Peter L Choyke; Barış Türkbey; Deborah E Citrin Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2018 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.630
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
Authors: Ryan L Brunsing; Natalie M Schenker-Ahmed; Nathan S White; J Kellogg Parsons; Christopher Kane; Joshua Kuperman; Hauke Bartsch; Andrew Karim Kader; Rebecca Rakow-Penner; Tyler M Seibert; Daniel Margolis; Steven S Raman; Carrie R McDonald; Nikdokht Farid; Santosh Kesari; Donna Hansel; Ahmed Shabaik; Anders M Dale; David S Karow Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 4.813