Literature DB >> 20308447

Prostate cancer: value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection--histopathologic correlation.

Baris Turkbey1, Peter A Pinto, Haresh Mani, Marcelino Bernardo, Yuxi Pang, Yolanda L McKinney, Kiranpreet Khurana, Gregory C Ravizzini, Paul S Albert, Maria J Merino, Peter L Choyke.   

Abstract

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

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20308447      PMCID: PMC2843833          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.09090475

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  24 in total

1.  Localization of prostate cancer using 3T MRI: comparison of T2-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging.

Authors:  Chan Kyo Kim; Byung Kwan Park; Bohyun Kim
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  2006 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.826

2.  Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes.

Authors:  S L Zeger; K Y Liang
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1986-03       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Prostate cancer: prediction of extracapsular extension with endorectal MR imaging and three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging.

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

4.  Correlation of proton MR spectroscopic imaging with gleason score based on step-section pathologic analysis after radical prostatectomy.

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

5.  Staging prostate cancer with dynamic contrast-enhanced endorectal MR imaging prior to radical prostatectomy: experienced versus less experienced readers.

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

6.  Study of microvessel density and the expression of the angiogenic factors VEGF, bFGF and the receptors Flt-1 and FLK-1 in benign, premalignant and malignant prostate tissues.

Authors:  J Pallares; F Rojo; J Iriarte; J Morote; L I Armadans; I de Torres
Journal:  Histol Histopathol       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.303

7.  Contribution of the MR spectroscopic imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in the peripheral zone.

Authors:  Emanuele Casciani; Elisabetta Polettini; Luca Bertini; Gabriele Masselli; Paolo Emiliozzi; Mostafà Amini; Vito Pansadoro; Gian Franco Gualdi
Journal:  Abdom Imaging       Date:  2007-02-10

8.  Prostate cancer tumor volume: measurement with endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging.

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

9.  Three-dimensional H-1 MR spectroscopic imaging of the in situ human prostate with high (0.24-0.7-cm3) spatial resolution.

Authors:  J Kurhanewicz; D B Vigneron; H Hricak; P Narayan; P Carroll; S J Nelson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Time trends in clinical risk stratification for prostate cancer: implications for outcomes (data from CaPSURE).

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg; Deborah P Lubeck; Shilpa S Mehta; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  168 in total

1.  [MRI navigated stereotactic prostate biopsy: fusion of MRI and real-time transrectal ultrasound images for perineal prostate biopsies].

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

Review 2.  Diffusion weighted imaging in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Cher Heng Tan; Jihong Wang; Vikas Kundra
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-10-09       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 3.  Image guidance in the focal treatment of prostate cancer.

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

4.  Image registration for targeted MRI-guided transperineal prostate biopsy.

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

5.  3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network.

Authors:  Andriy Fedorov; Reinhard Beichel; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Julien Finet; Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin; Sonia Pujol; Christian Bauer; Dominique Jennings; Fiona Fennessy; Milan Sonka; John Buatti; Stephen Aylward; James V Miller; Steve Pieper; Ron Kikinis
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2012-07-06       Impact factor: 2.546

Review 6.  Functional MRI for radiotherapy dose painting.

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

Review 7.  Prostate biopsy for the interventional radiologist.

Authors:  Cheng William Hong; Hayet Amalou; Sheng Xu; Baris Turkbey; Pingkun Yan; Jochen Kruecker; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood
Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol       Date:  2014-02-26       Impact factor: 3.464

8.  Natural history of small index lesions suspicious for prostate cancer on multiparametric MRI: recommendations for interval imaging follow-up.

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

9.  The role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in focal therapy for prostate cancer: recommendations from a consensus panel.

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

10.  Information of prostate biopsy positive core: does it affect MR detection of prostate cancer on using 3T-MRI?

Authors:  Rika Yoshida; Yasushi Kaji; Yukihisa Tamaki; Takashi Katsube; Hajime Kitagaki; Tsunehito Kanbara; Takao Kamai
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2015-03-12       Impact factor: 2.374

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.