PURPOSE: To retrospectively determine whether inapparent tumor at endorectal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging is a favorable prognostic finding in prostate cancer patients who select active surveillance for management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Committee on Human Research approval was obtained and compliance with HIPAA regulations was observed, with waiver of requirement for written consent. Ninety-two men (mean age, 64 years; range, 43-85 years) were retrospectively identified who had biopsy-proved prostate cancer, who had undergone baseline endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging, and who had selected active surveillance for management. Their mean baseline serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was 5.5 ng/mL, and the median Gleason score was 6. Two readers with 10 and 3 years of experience independently reviewed all MR images and determined whether tumor was apparent on the basis of evaluation of established morphologic and metabolic findings. Another investigator compiled data about baseline clinical stage, biopsy findings, and serum PSA measurements. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the relationship between the clinical parameters and tumor apparency at MR imaging and the biochemical outcome. RESULTS: At baseline MR imaging, readers 1 and 2 considered 54 and 26 patients, respectively, to have inapparent tumor (fair interobserver agreement; kappa = 0.30). During a mean follow-up of 4.8 years, 52 patients had a stable PSA level and 40 had an increasing PSA level. In multivariate analysis, no significant association was found between the baseline clinical stage, Gleason score, serum PSA level, or the presence of apparent tumor at endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging for either reader and the biochemical outcome (P > .05 for all). CONCLUSION: Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging findings of tumor apparency or inapparency in prostate cancer patients who select active surveillance for management do not appear to be of prognostic value. (c) RSNA, 2008.
PURPOSE: To retrospectively determine whether inapparent tumor at endorectal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging is a favorable prognostic finding in prostate cancerpatients who select active surveillance for management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Committee on Human Research approval was obtained and compliance with HIPAA regulations was observed, with waiver of requirement for written consent. Ninety-two men (mean age, 64 years; range, 43-85 years) were retrospectively identified who had biopsy-proved prostate cancer, who had undergone baseline endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging, and who had selected active surveillance for management. Their mean baseline serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was 5.5 ng/mL, and the median Gleason score was 6. Two readers with 10 and 3 years of experience independently reviewed all MR images and determined whether tumor was apparent on the basis of evaluation of established morphologic and metabolic findings. Another investigator compiled data about baseline clinical stage, biopsy findings, and serum PSA measurements. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the relationship between the clinical parameters and tumor apparency at MR imaging and the biochemical outcome. RESULTS: At baseline MR imaging, readers 1 and 2 considered 54 and 26 patients, respectively, to have inapparent tumor (fair interobserver agreement; kappa = 0.30). During a mean follow-up of 4.8 years, 52 patients had a stable PSA level and 40 had an increasing PSA level. In multivariate analysis, no significant association was found between the baseline clinical stage, Gleason score, serum PSA level, or the presence of apparent tumor at endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging for either reader and the biochemical outcome (P > .05 for all). CONCLUSION: Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging findings of tumor apparency or inapparency in prostate cancerpatients who select active surveillance for management do not appear to be of prognostic value. (c) RSNA, 2008.
Authors: R A Huch Böni; J A Boner; J F Debatin; F Trinkler; H Knönagel; A Von Hochstetter; U Helfenstein; G P Krestin Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 1995-09 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Hongyan Wu; Leon Sun; Judd W Moul; Hong Yu Wu; David G McLeod; Christopher Amling; Raymond Lance; Leo Kusuda; Timothy Donahue; John Foley; Andrew Chung; Wade Sexton; Douglas Soderdahl Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 7.450
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
Authors: Barış Türkbey; Marcelino Bernardo; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 2.630
Authors: Kristen L Zakian; Hedvig Hricak; Nicole Ishill; Victor E Reuter; Steven Eberhardt; Chaya S Moskowitz; Amita Shukla-Dave; Liang Wang; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Jason A Koutcher Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-10-16 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Tim Joseph; David A McKenna; Antonio C Westphalen; Fergus V Coakley; Shoujun Zhao; Ying Lu; I-Chow Hsu; Mack Roach; John Kurhanewicz Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-08-28 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Robert R Flavell; Antonio C Westphalen; Carmin Liang; Christopher C Sotto; Susan M Noworolski; Daniel B Vigneron; Zhen J Wang; John Kurhanewicz Journal: Abdom Imaging Date: 2014-10