Literature DB >> 18024434

Peripheral zone prostate cancer: accuracy of different interpretative approaches with MR and MR spectroscopic imaging.

Antonio C Westphalen1, Fergus V Coakley, Aliya Qayyum, Mark Swanson, Jeffry P Simko, Ying Lu, Shoujun Zhao, Peter R Carroll, Benjamin M Yeh, John Kurhanewicz.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare relative accuracy of different interpretative approaches to magnetic resonance (MR) and MR spectroscopic imaging of peripheral zone prostate cancer, by using histologic examination results as the reference standard.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant study had institutional Committee on Human Research approval, with waiver of written consent requirement. Spectroscopic voxels of unequivocally benign (n = 66) or malignant (n = 77) peripheral zone tissue were identified by using step-section histopathologic tumor maps created for 28 men (mean age, 60 years; range, 46-71 years) who underwent endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging before radical prostatectomy. Two readers (9 and 8 years of experience) independently scored the selected voxels on a scale from 1 (likely benign) to 5 (likely malignant) at randomized review of the corresponding tissue outlined on a transverse T2-weighted MR image (T2 approach), the MR spectrum from the selected voxel only (single-voxel approach), the MR spectra from all voxels at the same axial level (multivoxel approach), and both the corresponding tissue outlined on a transverse T2-weighted image and the MR spectra from all voxels at the same axial level (integrated approach). Readers were aware that spectra were derived in patients with biopsy-proved diagnoses of prostate cancer and represented either benign or malignant tissue but were unaware of which voxels had been labeled benign or malignant and of all other clinical, histopathologic, and MR imaging findings. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed. Generalized estimating equation method was used to estimate sensitivity and specificity for specific cutoff values.
RESULTS: Mean areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) for the T2, single-voxel, multivoxel, and integrated approaches were 0.69, 0.72, 0.72, and 0.76, respectively. AUC of the integrated approach was significantly higher than those of the other three approaches (P < .001). kappa Values for assessment of interobserver variability for the T2, single-voxel, multivoxel, and integrated approaches were 0.39, 0.39, 0.34, and 0.48, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Addition of MR spectroscopic imaging to MR imaging significantly improves characterization of peripheral zone prostate tissue as benign or malignant; improved performance is obtained when both data sets are interpreted in an integrated fashion. RSNA, 2007

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18024434     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2453062042

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  28 in total

Review 1.  Magnetic resonance spectroscopy: a promising tool for the diagnostics of human prostate cancer?

Authors:  Johannes Kurth; Elita Defeo; Leo L Cheng
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2011 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.498

2.  [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

Review 3.  Advances in prostate cancer imaging techniques and strategies.

Authors:  Giovanni Lucignani
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 4.  Role of magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging before and after radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Antonio C Westphalen; David A McKenna; John Kurhanewicz; Fergus V Coakley
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 2.942

5.  Preoperative mp-MRI of the prostate provides little information about staging of prostate carcinoma in daily clinical practice.

Authors:  Andrea Billing; Alexander Buchner; Christian Stief; Alexander Roosen
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-11-29       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Fast T2*-weighted MRI of the prostate at 3 Tesla.

Authors:  Rulon L Hardman; Fadi El-Merhi; Adam J Jung; Steve Ware; Ian M Thompson; Harry T Friel; Qi Peng
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 4.813

7.  Prospective comparison of T2w-MRI and dynamic-contrast-enhanced MRI, 3D-MR spectroscopic imaging or diffusion-weighted MRI in repeat TRUS-guided biopsies.

Authors:  Daniel Portalez; Gautier Rollin; Pierre Leandri; Benjamin Elman; Patrick Mouly; Frédéric Jonca; Bernard Malavaud
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-08-03       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 8.  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

9.  The role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in prostate cancer imaging and staging at 1.5 and 3 Tesla: the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) approach.

Authors:  B Nicolas Bloch; Robert E Lenkinski; Neil M Rofsky
Journal:  Cancer Biomark       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.388

10.  The targeting behavior of folate-nanohydrogel evaluated by near infrared imaging system in tumor-bearing mouse model.

Authors:  Jian Zhang; Dawei Deng; Zhiyu Qian; Fei Liu; Xinyang Chen; Lianxiao An; Yueqing Gu
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2009-11-11       Impact factor: 4.200

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.