PURPOSE: To prospectively determine the accuracies of T2-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, dynamic contrast material-enhanced MR imaging, and quantitative three-dimensional (3D) proton MR spectroscopic imaging of the entire prostate for prostate cancer localization, with whole-mount histopathologic section findings as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional review board, and informed consent was obtained from all patients. Thirty-four consecutive men with a mean age of 60 years and a mean prostate-specific antigen level of 8 ng/mL were examined. The median biopsy Gleason score was 6. T2-weighted MR imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging, and 3D MR spectroscopic imaging were performed, and on the basis of the image data, two readers with different levels of experience recorded the location of the suspicious peripheral zone and central gland tumor nodules on each of 14 standardized regions of interest (ROIs) in the prostate. The degree of diagnostic confidence for each ROI was recorded on a five-point scale. Localization accuracy and ROI-based receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated. RESULTS: For both readers, areas under the ROC curve for T2-weighted MR, dynamic contrast-enhanced MR, and 3D MR spectroscopic imaging were 0.68, 0.91, and 0.80, respectively. Reader accuracy in tumor localization with dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging was significantly better than that with quantitative spectroscopic imaging (P < .01). Reader accuracy in tumor localization with both dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging and spectroscopic imaging was significantly better than that with T2-weighted imaging (P < .01). CONCLUSION: Compared with use of T2-weighted MR imaging, use of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and 3D MR spectroscopic imaging facilitated significantly improved accuracy in prostate cancer localization.
PURPOSE: To prospectively determine the accuracies of T2-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, dynamic contrast material-enhanced MR imaging, and quantitative three-dimensional (3D) proton MR spectroscopic imaging of the entire prostate for prostate cancer localization, with whole-mount histopathologic section findings as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional review board, and informed consent was obtained from all patients. Thirty-four consecutive men with a mean age of 60 years and a mean prostate-specific antigen level of 8 ng/mL were examined. The median biopsy Gleason score was 6. T2-weighted MR imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging, and 3D MR spectroscopic imaging were performed, and on the basis of the image data, two readers with different levels of experience recorded the location of the suspicious peripheral zone and central gland tumor nodules on each of 14 standardized regions of interest (ROIs) in the prostate. The degree of diagnostic confidence for each ROI was recorded on a five-point scale. Localization accuracy and ROI-based receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated. RESULTS: For both readers, areas under the ROC curve for T2-weighted MR, dynamic contrast-enhanced MR, and 3D MR spectroscopic imaging were 0.68, 0.91, and 0.80, respectively. Reader accuracy in tumor localization with dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging was significantly better than that with quantitative spectroscopic imaging (P < .01). Reader accuracy in tumor localization with both dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging and spectroscopic imaging was significantly better than that with T2-weighted imaging (P < .01). CONCLUSION: Compared with use of T2-weighted MR imaging, use of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and 3D MR spectroscopic imaging facilitated significantly improved accuracy in prostate cancer localization.
Authors: B Nicolas Bloch; Elizabeth M Genega; Daniel N Costa; Ivan Pedrosa; Martin P Smith; Herbert Y Kressel; Long Ngo; Martin G Sanda; William C Dewolf; Neil M Rofsky Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-06-03 Impact factor: 5.315
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: 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
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Omer Aras; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Vijay Shah; Marcelino Bernardo; Thomas Pohida; Dagane Daar; Compton Benjamin; Yolanda L McKinney; W Marston Linehan; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-08-15 Impact factor: 7.450