PURPOSE: To establish the additional value of 3D magnetic resonance spectroscopy (3D-MRS) imaging to endorectal MR imaging in the diagnosis of prostrate cancer in the peripheral zone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MR imaging and MRS imaging were performed in 79 patients with suspicion of prostate cancer on the basis of digital rectal exploration, transrectal ultrasound and PSA level. All the examinations were performed with 1.5 T MR scan using an endorectal coil (transverse and coronal FSE T2-weighted sequences, axial SE T1-weighted and PRESS 3D CSI). MR examinations have been evaluated by two Radiologists blind of the clinical data in a "per patients" analysis. MR imaging and MRS imaging findings were compared with the result of histological data from radical prostatectomy in 53 patients and biopsy in 17 patients. RESULTS: Nine patients (11.4%) were excluded because of serious artefacts in the MR spectrum. The reported values of sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for MR imaging alone were respectively 84%, 50%, 76% and 63% (LR+ 1.7; LR- 0.3). Instead the reported values of sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for the combination of MR imaging to MRS imaging were respectively 89%, 79%, 89% and 79% (LR+ 4.28; LR- 0.14). We found an incremental benefit of MRS imaging to MR imaging for tumour diagnosis although these results did not show statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: The MRS imaging improves the accuracy of the endorectal MR imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: To establish the additional value of 3D magnetic resonance spectroscopy (3D-MRS) imaging to endorectal MR imaging in the diagnosis of prostrate cancer in the peripheral zone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MR imaging and MRS imaging were performed in 79 patients with suspicion of prostate cancer on the basis of digital rectal exploration, transrectal ultrasound and PSA level. All the examinations were performed with 1.5 T MR scan using an endorectal coil (transverse and coronal FSE T2-weighted sequences, axial SE T1-weighted and PRESS 3D CSI). MR examinations have been evaluated by two Radiologists blind of the clinical data in a "per patients" analysis. MR imaging and MRS imaging findings were compared with the result of histological data from radical prostatectomy in 53 patients and biopsy in 17 patients. RESULTS: Nine patients (11.4%) were excluded because of serious artefacts in the MR spectrum. The reported values of sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for MR imaging alone were respectively 84%, 50%, 76% and 63% (LR+ 1.7; LR- 0.3). Instead the reported values of sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for the combination of MR imaging to MRS imaging were respectively 89%, 79%, 89% and 79% (LR+ 4.28; LR- 0.14). We found an incremental benefit of MRS imaging to MR imaging for tumour diagnosis although these results did not show statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: The MRS imaging improves the accuracy of the endorectal MR imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer.
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Vijay P Shah; Yuxi Pang; Marcelino Bernardo; Sheng Xu; Jochen Kruecker; Julia Locklin; Angelo A Baccala; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Maria J Merino; Joanna H Shih; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-12-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jong Yeon Lee; In Ho Chang; Young Tae Moon; Kyung Do Kim; Soon Chul Myung; Tae Hyoung Kim; Jong Beum Lee Journal: Korean J Urol Date: 2011-10-19
Authors: Antonio C Westphalen; Walter J Koff; Fergus V Coakley; Valdair F Muglia; John M Neuhaus; Ralph T Marcus; John Kurhanewicz; Rebecca Smith-Bindman Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-08-24 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto; Haresh Mani; Marcelino Bernardo; Yuxi Pang; Yolanda L McKinney; Kiranpreet Khurana; Gregory C Ravizzini; Paul S Albert; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 11.105
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: John V Hegde; Robert V Mulkern; Lawrence P Panych; Fiona M Fennessy; Andriy Fedorov; Stephan E Maier; Clare M C Tempany Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 4.813