PURPOSE: To determine utility of multiparametric imaging performed at 3 T for detection of prostate cancer by using T2-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, MR spectroscopy, and dynamic contrast material-enhanced MR imaging, with whole-mount pathologic findings as reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospectively designed, HIPAA-compliant, single-institution study was approved by the local institutional review board. Seventy consecutive patients (mean age, 60.4 years; mean prostate-specific antigen level, 5.47 ng/mL [5.47 microg/L]; range, 1-19.9 ng/mL [1-19.9 microg/L]) were included; informed consent was obtained from each patient. All patients had biopsy-proved prostate cancer, with a median Gleason score of 7 (range, 6-9). Images were obtained by using a combination of six-channel cardiac and endorectal coils. MR imaging and pathologic findings were evaluated independently and blinded and then correlated with histopathologic findings by using side-by-side comparison. Analyses were conducted with a raw stringent approach and an alternative neighboring method, which accounted for surgical deformation, shrinkage, and nonuniform slicing factors in pathologic specimens. Generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were used to estimate the predictive value of region-specific, pathologically determined cancer for all three modalities. This approach accounts for the correlation among multiple regions in the same individual. RESULTS: For T2-weighted MR imaging, sensitivity and specificity values obtained with stringent approach were 0.42 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36, 0.47) and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.81, 0.86), and for the alternative neighboring approach, sensitivity and specificity values were 0.73 (95% CI: 0.67, 0.78) and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.93), respectively. The combined diagnostic accuracy of T2-weighted MR imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging, and MR spectroscopy for peripheral zone tumors was examined by calculating their predictive value with different combinations of techniques; T2-weighted MR imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging, and MR spectroscopy provided significant independent and additive predictive value when GEEs were used (P < .001, P = .02, P = .002, respectively). CONCLUSION: Multiparametric MR imaging (T2-weighted MR imaging, MR spectroscopy, dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging) of the prostate at 3 T enables tumor detection, with reasonable sensitivity and specificity values. RSNA, 2010
PURPOSE: To determine utility of multiparametric imaging performed at 3 T for detection of prostate cancer by using T2-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, MR spectroscopy, and dynamic contrast material-enhanced MR imaging, with whole-mount pathologic findings as reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospectively designed, HIPAA-compliant, single-institution study was approved by the local institutional review board. Seventy consecutive patients (mean age, 60.4 years; mean prostate-specific antigen level, 5.47 ng/mL [5.47 microg/L]; range, 1-19.9 ng/mL [1-19.9 microg/L]) were included; informed consent was obtained from each patient. All patients had biopsy-proved prostate cancer, with a median Gleason score of 7 (range, 6-9). Images were obtained by using a combination of six-channel cardiac and endorectal coils. MR imaging and pathologic findings were evaluated independently and blinded and then correlated with histopathologic findings by using side-by-side comparison. Analyses were conducted with a raw stringent approach and an alternative neighboring method, which accounted for surgical deformation, shrinkage, and nonuniform slicing factors in pathologic specimens. Generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were used to estimate the predictive value of region-specific, pathologically determined cancer for all three modalities. This approach accounts for the correlation among multiple regions in the same individual. RESULTS: For T2-weighted MR imaging, sensitivity and specificity values obtained with stringent approach were 0.42 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36, 0.47) and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.81, 0.86), and for the alternative neighboring approach, sensitivity and specificity values were 0.73 (95% CI: 0.67, 0.78) and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.93), respectively. The combined diagnostic accuracy of T2-weighted MR imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging, and MR spectroscopy for peripheral zone tumors was examined by calculating their predictive value with different combinations of techniques; T2-weighted MR imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging, and MR spectroscopy provided significant independent and additive predictive value when GEEs were used (P < .001, P = .02, P = .002, respectively). CONCLUSION: Multiparametric MR imaging (T2-weighted MR imaging, MR spectroscopy, dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging) of the prostate at 3 T enables tumor detection, with reasonable sensitivity and specificity values. RSNA, 2010
Authors: K K Yu; J Scheidler; H Hricak; D B Vigneron; C J Zaloudek; R G Males; S J Nelson; P R Carroll; J Kurhanewicz Journal: Radiology Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Kristen L Zakian; Kanishka Sircar; Hedvig Hricak; Hui-Ni Chen; Amita Shukla-Dave; Steven Eberhardt; Manickam Muruganandham; Lanie Ebora; Michael W Kattan; Victor E Reuter; Peter T Scardino; Jason A Koutcher Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jurgen J Fütterer; Marc R Engelbrecht; Henkjan J Huisman; Gerrit J Jager; Christina A Hulsbergen-van De Kaa; J Alfred Witjes; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Fergus V Coakley; John Kurhanewicz; Ying Lu; Kirk D Jones; Mark G Swanson; Silvia D Chang; Peter R Carroll; Hedvig Hricak Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: T H Kuru; C Tulea; T Simpfendörfer; V Popeneciu; M Roethke; B A Hadaschik; M Hohenfellner Journal: Urologe A Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Anthony N Hoang; Dmitry Volkin; Nitin K Yerram; Srinivas Vourganti; Jeffrey Nix; W Marston Linehan; Bradford Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: Curr Opin Urol Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 2.309
Authors: Andriy Fedorov; Kemal Tuncali; Fiona M Fennessy; Junichi Tokuda; Nobuhiko Hata; William M Wells; Ron Kikinis; Clare M Tempany Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-05-29 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Uulke A van der Heide; Antonetta C Houweling; Greetje Groenendaal; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Philippe Lambin Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-07-06 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Barış Türkbey; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Anthony N Hoang; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Lambros Stamatakis; Hong Truong; Jeffrey W Nix; Srinivas Vourganti; Kinzya B Grant; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2014 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.630
Authors: Berrend G Muller; Jurgen J Fütterer; Rajan T Gupta; Aaron Katz; Alexander Kirkham; John Kurhanewicz; Judd W Moul; Peter A Pinto; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Cary Robertson; Jean de la Rosette; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; J Stephen Jones; Osamu Ukimura; Sadhna Verma; Hessel Wijkstra; Michael Marberger Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-11-13 Impact factor: 5.588