Literature DB >> 19773038

Dynamic contrast-enhanced-magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of intraprostatic prostate cancer: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens.

Philippe Puech1, Eric Potiron, Laurent Lemaitre, Xavier Leroy, Georges-Pascal Haber, Sebastien Crouzet, Kazumi Kamoi, Arnauld Villers.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic performance of dynamic contrast-enhanced-magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) in the identification of intraprostatic cancer foci related to cancer volume at histopathology, in patients with clinically localized cancer treated by radical prostatectomy, with whole-mount histopathologic sections as the reference standard.
METHODS: Eighty-three consecutive radical prostatectomy specimens from patients referred for a prostate-specific antigen elevation were correlated with prebiopsy MRI. MRI results ranked on a 5-point scale were correlated with the findings of histopathology maps in 8 prostate sectors, including volume, largest surface area, and percentage of Gleason grade 4/5. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was used.
RESULTS: Median prostate-specific antigen was 8.15 ng/mL. DCE-MRI was suspicious in 55 (66%) out of 83 patients. A separate cancer foci (mean 2.55 per patient) was present in 212 (34%) of 664 octants and DCE-MRI was suspicious in 68 of 212. Sensitivity and specificity of DCE-MRI at score 3.4 or 5 for identification of cancer foci at any volume was 32% and 95%, respectively. For identification of cancer foci > 0.5 mL, the sensitivity and specificity were 86% and 94%, respectively, with the under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.874. Mean volume of DCE-MRI detected and missed cancers were 2.44 mL (0.02-14.5) and 0.16 mL (0.005-2.4), respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of DCE-MRI for identification of > 10% of Gleason grade 4/5 were 81% and 82%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: DCE-MRI can accurately identify intraprostatic cancer foci. Possible applications are guidance for biopsies, selection of patients for watchful waiting, and focal treatment planning.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19773038     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.04.102

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  68 in total

1.  Transatlantic Consensus Group on active surveillance and focal therapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Hashim U Ahmed; Oguz Akin; Jonathan A Coleman; Sarah Crane; Mark Emberton; Larry Goldenberg; Hedvig Hricak; Mike W Kattan; John Kurhanewicz; Caroline M Moore; Chris Parker; Thomas J Polascik; Peter Scardino; Nicholas van As; Arnauld Villers
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-11-11       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 2.  Focal therapy of prostate cancer: evidence-based analysis for modern selection criteria.

Authors:  Michael R Abern; Matvey Tsivian; Thomas J Polascik
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  [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 4.  Current use of PSMA-PET in prostate cancer management.

Authors:  Tobias Maurer; Matthias Eiber; Markus Schwaiger; Jürgen E Gschwend
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2016-02-23       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 5.  The promise of dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging in radiation therapy.

Authors:  Yue Cao
Journal:  Semin Radiat Oncol       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 5.934

6.  Computer-aided analysis of prostate multiparametric MR images: an unsupervised fusion-based approach.

Authors:  N Betrouni; N Makni; S Lakroum; S Mordon; A Villers; P Puech
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2015-01-22       Impact factor: 2.924

7.  MRI-based prostate cancer detection with high-level representation and hierarchical classification.

Authors:  Yulian Zhu; Li Wang; Mingxia Liu; Chunjun Qian; Ambereen Yousuf; Aytekin Oto; Dinggang Shen
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Is endorectal coil necessary for the staging of clinically localized prostate cancer? Comparison of non-endorectal versus endorectal MR imaging.

Authors:  Seung Hwan Lee; Kyung Kgi Park; Kyung Hwa Choi; Beom Jin Lim; Joo Hee Kim; Seung Wook Lee; Byung Ha Chung
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2010-07-11       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  The role of MRI-targeted and confirmatory biopsies for cancer upstaging at selection in patients considered for active surveillance for clinically low-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  François Marliere; Philippe Puech; Ahmed Benkirane; Arnauld Villers; Laurent Lemaitre; Xavier Leroy; Nacim Betrouni; Adil Ouzzane
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-05-12       Impact factor: 4.226

10.  Dosimetric benefit of DMLC tracking for conventional and sub-volume boosted prostate intensity-modulated arc radiotherapy.

Authors:  Tobias Pommer; Marianne Falk; Per R Poulsen; Paul J Keall; Ricky T O'Brien; Peter Meidahl Petersen; Per Munck af Rosenschöld
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2013-03-14       Impact factor: 3.609

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.