Literature DB >> 17223922

The utility of magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for predicting insignificant prostate cancer: an initial analysis.

Amita Shukla-Dave1, Hedvig Hricak, Michael W Kattan, Darko Pucar, Kentaro Kuroiwa, Hui-Ni Chen, Jessica Spector, Jason A Koutcher, Kristen L Zakian, Peter T Scardino.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To design new models that combine clinical variables and biopsy data with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) data, and assess their value in predicting the probability of insignificant prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 220 patients (cT stage T1c or T2a, prostate-specific antigen level <20 ng/mL, biopsy Gleason score 6) had MRI/MRSI before surgery and met the inclusion criteria for the study. The probability of insignificant cancer was recorded retrospectively and separately for MRI and combined MRI/MRSI on a 0-3 scale (0, definitely insignificant; - 3, definitely significant). Insignificant cancer was defined from surgical pathology as organ-confined cancer of </= 0.5 cm(3) with no poorly differentiated elements. The accuracy of predicting insignificant prostate cancer was assessed using areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs), for previously reported clinical models and for newly generated MR models combining clinical variables, and biopsy data with MRI data (MRI model) and MRI/MRSI data (MRI/MRSI model).
RESULTS: At pathology, 41% of patients had insignificant cancer; both MRI (AUC 0.803) and MRI/MRSI (AUC 0.854) models incorporating clinical, biopsy and MR data performed significantly better than the basic (AUC 0.574) and more comprehensive medium (AUC 0.726) clinical models. The P values for the differences between the models were: base vs medium model, <0.001; base vs MRI model, <0.001; base vs MRI/MRSI model, <0.001; medium vs MRI model, <0.018; medium vs MRI/MRSI model, <0.001.
CONCLUSIONS: The new MRI and MRI/MRSI models performed better than the clinical models for predicting the probability of insignificant prostate cancer. After appropriate validation, the new MRI and MRI/MRSI models might help in counselling patients who are considering choosing deferred therapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17223922     DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.06689.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  51 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.  Transatlantic Consensus Group on active surveillance and focal therapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Hashim U Ahmed; Oguz Akin; Jonathan A Coleman; Sarah Crane; Mark Emberton; Larry Goldenberg; Hedvig Hricak; Mike W Kattan; John Kurhanewicz; Caroline M Moore; Chris Parker; Thomas J Polascik; Peter Scardino; Nicholas van As; Arnauld Villers
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-11-11       Impact factor: 5.588

3.  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

4.  Focal therapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Peter T Scardino
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 14.432

5.  Broadening the scope of image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT).

Authors:  Carlo Greco; C Clifton Ling
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.089

Review 6.  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

7.  [The relevance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the detection and exclusion of prostate cancer].

Authors:  J Stattaus; M Forsting
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 0.639

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

Review 9.  Critical review of prostate cancer predictive tools.

Authors:  Shahrokh F Shariat; Michael W Kattan; Andrew J Vickers; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  Future Oncol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.404

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.