Literature DB >> 1738994

MR imaging in adenocarcinoma of the prostate: interobserver variation and efficacy for determining stage C disease.

M L Schiebler1, B C Yankaskas, C Tempany, C E Spritzer, M D Rifkin, H M Pollack, P Holtz, E A Zerhouni.   

Abstract

Patients with adenocarcinoma of the prostate confined to the gland (stage B) are candidates for a potentially curative surgical procedure (radical retropubic prostatectomy). However, patients with adenocarcinoma that penetrates the capsule or invades the seminal vesicles (stage C) are no longer considered good candidates for surgical cure of their disease. The purpose of this study was to compare the ability of four radiologists to detect stage C disease on MR images and to evaluate interobserver variability. One hundred consecutive MR studies of the prostate were reviewed independently by four radiologists to determine whether the cancer was stage C (capsule penetration or seminal vesicle invasion by tumor). A radical prostatectomy was performed in each case, and careful histologic assessment was made of the prostatic capsule and seminal vesicles for any evidence of stage C disease. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy (true-positive + true-negative/100 patients) in detecting stage C disease were calculated for each of the four readers. Four receiver-operating-characteristic curves were generated and compared by means of the univariate z score. Percentage agreement was calculated for five specific areas of the prostate on MR images, and observations made by the best reader were compared with the other three to help determine interreader variability. The results showed that the sensitivity and specificity of MR imaging in detecting stage C disease ranged from .24 to .61 (mean, .48) and .49 to .79 (mean, .66), respectively. The accuracy of MR imaging ranged from .47 to .61 (mean, .55). The univariate z score test showed that one of the readers significantly differed from the other three. The average percentage agreement between that reader and the other three was 70% for the five separate anatomic regions. This study shows that considerable interobserver variation exists in the interpretation of MR images for staging cancer of the prostate. The average accuracy among four radiologists in determining the presence of stage C adenocarcinoma of the prostate from MR images was only slightly above a chance guess at .55.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1738994     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.158.3.1738994

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  8 in total

1.  Local staging of prostate carcinoma with endorectal coil MRI: correlation with whole-mount radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  C Bartolozzi; I Menchi; R Lencioni; S Serni; A Lapini; G Barbanti; A Bozza; A Amorosi; A Manganelli; M Carini
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Performance characteristics of MR imaging in the evaluation of clinically low-risk prostate cancer: a prospective study.

Authors:  Hebert Alberto Vargas; Oguz Akin; Amita Shukla-Dave; Jingbo Zhang; Kristen L Zakian; Junting Zheng; Kent Kanao; Debra A Goldman; Chaya S Moskowitz; Victor E Reuter; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Hedvig Hricak
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-09-05       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer: evaluation by using multiparametric endorectal MR imaging.

Authors:  Fatma Nur Soylu; Yahui Peng; Yulei Jiang; Shiyang Wang; Christine Schmid-Tannwald; Ila Sethi; Scott Eggener; Tatjana Antic; Aytekin Oto
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-02-25       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Prostate cancer: comparison of local staging accuracy of pelvic phased-array coil alone versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Local staging accuracy of prostate cancer using endorectal coil MR imaging.

Authors:  Jurgen J Fütterer; Marc R Engelbrecht; Gerrit J Jager; Robert P Hartman; Bernard F King; Christina A Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa; J Alfred Witjes; Jelle O Barentsz
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-10-06       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Interactive dedicated training curriculum improves accuracy in the interpretation of MR imaging of prostate cancer.

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

6.  Prostate cancer: role of pretreatment MR in predicting outcome after external-beam radiation therapy--initial experience.

Authors:  David A McKenna; Fergus V Coakley; Antonio C Westphalen; Shoujun Zhao; Ying Lu; Emily M Webb; Barby Pickett; Mack Roach; John Kurhanewicz
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-02-07       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  PROMIS--Prostate MR imaging study: A paired validating cohort study evaluating the role of multi-parametric MRI in men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer.

Authors:  A El-Shater Bosaily; C Parker; L C Brown; R Gabe; R G Hindley; R Kaplan; M Emberton; H U Ahmed
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2015-03-03       Impact factor: 2.226

8.  Radiological semantics discriminate clinically significant grade prostate cancer.

Authors:  Qian Li; Hong Lu; Jung Choi; Kenneth Gage; Sebastian Feuerlein; Julio M Pow-Sang; Robert Gillies; Yoganand Balagurunathan
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2019-12-03       Impact factor: 3.909

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.