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.
RCT Entities:
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.
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
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
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
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
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