Literature DB >> 20346052

The effects of the period between biopsy and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging on cancer staging in localized prostate cancer.

Kyung Kgi Park1, Seung Hwan Lee, Beom Jin Lim, Joo Hee Kim, Byung Ha Chung.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: to investigate whether there are any differences between preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and the final pathology results, based on the time between biopsy and preoperative MRI, as there are reports recommending ≥ 3 weeks after a prostate biopsy, primarily because haemorrhaging interferes with the interpretation of MRI. PATIENTS AND METHODS: between December 2007 and December 2008, we retrospectively analysed 69 consecutive patients who had biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer. The inclusion criteria for the study were a history of MRI investigation (combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI) and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The exclusion criteria included an MRI investigation-to-surgery interval of ≥ 1 week, a biopsy having been taken in another hospital, or other than 12 biopsy cores. The amount of haemorrhaging, number of haemorrhaging sites, and the location of the cancer were determined. For this, the prostate was divided into 12 segments which anatomically corresponded to the sites where the 12 core biopsies were taken. Each haemorrhagic prostate segment was scored according to its diameter. Pathology results were reviewed in the same manner. Finally, we assessed any discordance between the sets of results according to the period between the biopsy and the MRI. The association between the MRI and pathology results, in relation to the period between the biopsy and MRI, was plotted and tested using Pearson's correlation coefficient.
RESULTS: five of the 69 patients were excluded because they had a biopsy at another hospital, 12 were excluded because the period between the MRI and the surgery was >7 days. Suspected prostate haemorrhage was detected in 49 of 52 (94%) patients who had MRI. There was a significantly negative correlation with the period between biopsy and MRI (coefficient - 0.285, P= 0.041). There were no significant differences in cancer localization between MRI and pathology results according to the period between the biopsy and MRI (coefficient 0.028, P= 0.874). The rate of matching between MRI results and pathology results was 74%.
CONCLUSIONS: we found no significant differences in cancer localization between MRI and final pathology according to the period between the biopsy and MRI. Because of this finding, we do not recommend deferring MRI for the purpose of more accurate cancer staging.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20346052     DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09287.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  8 in total

1.  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

2.  The Influence of Background Signal Intensity Changes on Cancer Detection in Prostate MRI.

Authors:  Andreas M Hötker; Evelyn Dappa; Yousef Mazaheri; Behfar Ehdaie; Junting Zheng; Marinela Capanu; Hedvig Hricak; Oguz Akin
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2019-02-04       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Can robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) be performed very soon after biopsy?

Authors:  Jung Ki Jo; Jong Jin Oh; Sangchul Lee; Seong Jin Jeong; Sung Kyu Hong; Seok-Soo Byun; Sang Eun Lee
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-08-01       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Can 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging accurately detect prostate cancer extracapsular extension?

Authors:  Yannick Cerantola; Massimo Valerio; Aida Kawkabani Marchini; Jean-Yves Meuwly; Patrice Jichlinski
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.862

5.  Effects of post biopsy digital rectal compression on improving prostate cancer staging using magnetic resonance imaging in localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Kyung Kgi Park; Mun Su Chung; Soo Yoon Chung; Joo Hee Kim; Byung Ha Chung
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2013-01-01       Impact factor: 2.759

6.  Nonvisible tumors on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging does not predict low-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Seung Hwan Lee; Kyo Chul Koo; Dong Hoon Lee; Byung Ha Chung
Journal:  Prostate Int       Date:  2015-10-08

7.  Clinical significance and predictors of oncologic outcome after radical prostatectomy for invisible prostate cancer on multiparametric MRI.

Authors:  Doo Yong Chung; Dong Hoon Koh; Hyeok Jun Goh; Min Seok Kim; Jong Soo Lee; Won Sik Jang; Young Deuk Choi
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2018-11-01       Impact factor: 4.430

8.  Clinical significance of multiparametric MRI and PSA density as predictors of residual tumor (pT0) following radical prostatectomy for T1a-T1b (incidental) prostate cancer.

Authors:  Doo Yong Chung; Hyeok Jun Goh; Dong Hoon Koh; Min Seok Kim; Jong Soo Lee; Won Sik Jang; Young Deuk Choi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-12-28       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.