Literature DB >> 17664475

Magnetic resonance imaging of the axial skeleton for detecting bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: diagnostic and cost-effectiveness and comparison with current detection strategies.

Frédéric E Lecouvet1, Daphné Geukens, Annabelle Stainier, François Jamar, Jacques Jamart, Bertrand Janne d'Othée, Patrick Therasse, Bruno Vande Berg, Bertrand Tombal.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance, costs, and impact on therapy of one-step magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the axial skeleton (MRIas) for detecting bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-six consecutive patients with high-risk PCa prospectively underwent MRIas in addition to the standard sequential work-up (SW) of bone metastases (technetium-99m bone scintigraphy [BS] completed with targeted x-rays [TXR] in patients with equivocal BS findings and with MRI obtained on request [MRIor] in patients with inconclusive BS/TXR findings). Panel review of initial and 6-month follow-up MRI findings, BS/TXR, and all available baseline and follow-up clinical and biologic data were used as the best valuable comparator to define metastatic status. Diagnostic effectiveness of MRIas alone was compared with each step of the SW. Impact of MRIas screening on patient management and costs was evaluated.
RESULTS: On the basis of the best valuable comparator, 41 patients (62%) had bone metastases. Sensitivities were 46% for BS alone, 63% for BS/TXR, 83% for BS/TXR/MRIor, and 100% for MRIas; the corresponding specificities were 32%, 64%, 100%, and 88%, respectively. MRIas was significantly more sensitive than any other approach (P < .05, McNemar). MRIas identified metastases in seven (30%) of 23 patients considered negative and eight (47%) of 17 patients considered equivocal by other strategies, which altered the initially planned therapy. Economic impact was variable among countries, depending on reimbursement rates.
CONCLUSION: MRIas is more sensitive than the current SW of radiographically identified bone metastases in high-risk PCa patients, which impacts the clinical management of a significant proportion of patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17664475     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.09.2940

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  48 in total

1.  Comparison of hybrid 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT and 99mTc-DPD-SPECT/CT for the detection of bone metastases in prostate cancer patients: Additional value of morphologic information from low dose CT.

Authors:  Jan-Carlo Janssen; Sebastian Meißner; Nadine Woythal; Vikas Prasad; Winfried Brenner; Gerd Diederichs; Bernd Hamm; Marcus R Makowski
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-08-04       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  False-positive prostate cancer bone metastases on magnetic resonance imaging correctly classified on gallium-68-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography.

Authors:  Sofiullah Olayinka Abubakar; Yaw Ampem Amoako; Naima Tag; Tessa Kotze
Journal:  World J Nucl Med       Date:  2018 Oct-Dec

Review 3.  Imaging of distant metastases of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Filippo Pesapane; Marcin Czarniecki; Matteo Basilio Suter; Baris Turkbey; Geert Villeirs
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2018-09-14       Impact factor: 3.064

Review 4.  A Urologist's Personal View of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Paul F Schellhammer
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2016-09

5.  Potential Impact of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT on the Planning of Definitive Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Jeremie Calais; Amar U Kishan; Minsong Cao; Wolfgang P Fendler; Matthias Eiber; Ken Herrmann; Francesco Ceci; Robert E Reiter; Matthew B Rettig; John V Hegde; Narek Shaverdian; Chris R King; Michael L Steinberg; Johannes Czernin; Nicholas G Nickols
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2018-04-13       Impact factor: 10.057

6.  Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 Tesla to assess local recurrence following radical prostatectomy using T2-weighted and contrast-enhanced imaging.

Authors:  Stefano Cirillo; Massimo Petracchini; Lorenza Scotti; Teresa Gallo; Annalisa Macera; Maria Cristina Bona; Cinzia Ortega; Pietro Gabriele; Daniele Regge
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-09-30       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  Unmet needs in the prediction and detection of metastases in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Oliver Sartor; Mario Eisenberger; Michael W Kattan; Bertrand Tombal; Frederic Lecouvet
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2013-05-06

8.  Prostate cancer: searching for bone metastases--how, when and why?

Authors:  Fred Saad
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2011-05-31       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 9.  Diagnosis of bone metastases: a meta-analysis comparing ¹⁸FDG PET, CT, MRI and bone scintigraphy.

Authors:  Hui-Lin Yang; Tao Liu; Xi-Ming Wang; Yong Xu; Sheng-Ming Deng
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-09-02       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 10.  Diagnostic imaging to detect and evaluate response to therapy in bone metastases from prostate cancer: current modalities and new horizons.

Authors:  Laura Evangelista; Francesco Bertoldo; Francesco Boccardo; Giario Conti; Ilario Menchi; Francesco Mungai; Umberto Ricardi; Emilio Bombardieri
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 9.236

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.