Literature DB >> 20197480

Value of magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging for detecting prostate cancer foci in men with prior negative biopsy.

Alessandro Sciarra1, Valeria Panebianco, Mauro Ciccariello, Stefano Salciccia, Susanna Cattarino, Danilo Lisi, Alessandro Gentilucci, Andrea Alfarone, Silvia Bernardo, Roberto Passariello, Vincenzo Gentile.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study aimed to prospectively analyze the role of magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging (MRSI) and dynamic-contrast enhancement magnetic resonance (DCEMR) in the detection of prostate tumor foci in patients with persistently elevated prostate-specific antigen levels (in the range of >or=4 ng/mL to <10 ng/mL) and prior negative random trans-rectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy. EXPERIMENTAL
DESIGN: This was a prospective randomized single-center study. One hundred and eighty eligible cases were included in the study. Patients in group A were submitted to a second random prostate biopsy, whereas patients in group B were submitted to a (1)H-MRSI-DCEMR examination and samples targeted on suspicious areas were associated to the random biopsy.
RESULTS: At the second biopsy, a prostate adenocarcinoma histologic diagnosis was found in 22 of 90 cases (24.4%) in group A and in 41 of 90 cases (45.5%) in group B (P = 0.01). On a patient-by-patient basis, MRSI had 92.3% sensitivity, 88.2% specificity, 85.7% positive predictive value (PPV), 93.7% negative predictive value (NPV), and 90% accuracy; DCEMR had 84.6 % sensitivity, 82.3% specificity, 78.5% PPV, 87.5% NPV, and 83.3% accuracy; and the association MRSI plus DCEMR had 92.6% sensitivity, 88.8% specificity, 88.7% PPV, 92.7% NPV, and 90.7% accuracy, for predicting prostate cancer detection.
CONCLUSIONS: The combination of MRSI and DCEMR showed the potential to guide biopsy to cancer foci in patients with previously negative TRUS biopsy. To avoid a potential bias, represented from having taken more samples in group B (mean of cores, 12.17) than in group A (10 cores), in the future a MRSI/DCEMR directed biopsy could be prospectively compared with a saturation biopsy procedure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20197480     DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-2195

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Cancer Res        ISSN: 1078-0432            Impact factor:   12.531


  39 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.  MRI-guided prostate biopsy detects clinically significant cancer: analysis of a cohort of 100 patients after previous negative TRUS biopsy.

Authors:  M Roethke; A G Anastasiadis; M Lichy; M Werner; P Wagner; S Kruck; Claus D Claussen; A Stenzl; H P Schlemmer; D Schilling
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-04-22       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 3.  [Multiparametric MRI, elastography, contrastenhanced TRUS. Are there indications with reliable diagnostic advantages before prostate biopsy?].

Authors:  A Hegele; L Skrobek; R Hofmann; P Olbert
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 4.  Anatomic and Molecular Imaging in Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Eric T Miller; Amirali Salmasi; Robert E Reiter
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 6.915

Review 5.  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 6.  Addressing the need for repeat prostate biopsy: new technology and approaches.

Authors:  Michael L Blute; E Jason Abel; Tracy M Downs; Frederick Kelcz; David F Jarrard
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 7.  Prostate MRI and transperineal TRUS/MRI fusion biopsy for prostate cancer detection: clinical practice updates.

Authors:  Eugenio Martorana; Giacomo Maria Pirola; Maria Cristina Aisa; Pietro Scialpi; Aldo Di Blasi; Giovanni Saredi; Alfredo D'Andrea; Stefano Signore; Riccardo Grisanti; Michele Scialpi
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2019-07-01

8.  Template for MR Visualization and Needle Targeting.

Authors:  Rui Li; Sheng Xu; Ivane Bakhutashvili; Ismail B Turkbey; Peter Choyke; Peter Pinto; Bradford Wood; Zion T H Tse
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2018-11-28       Impact factor: 3.934

9.  Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen.

Authors:  Geoffrey A Sonn; Edward Chang; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J Margolis; Malu Macairan; Patricia Lieu; Jiaoti Huang; Frederick J Dorey; Robert E Reiter; Leonard S Marks
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2013-03-17       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 10.  Current status of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography fusion software platforms for guidance of prostate biopsies.

Authors:  Jennifer K Logan; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Andrew Gomella; Hayet Amalou; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2014-05-22       Impact factor: 5.588

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.