OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of histopathological lesion characteristics on the sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for per-lesion identification of extracapsular extension (ECE) of prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 176 patients (median age 58.9 years, range 38-77) who underwent endorectal MRI before radical prostatectomy between January 2001 and July 2004, had no previous treatment and had whole-mount step-section pathological specimens showing at least one capsule-abutting lesion. The likelihood of ECE of capsule-abutting lesions was retrospectively scored from 1 to 5 based on radiologists' prospective MRI interpretations. Generalized estimating equation regression models were used to determine the effect of the following histological variables on the sensitivity of MRI for identifying ECE of capsule-abutting lesions: maximum diameter, largest perpendicular diameter (LPD), bi-dimensional diameter product, Gleason grade, and zonal extent. RESULTS: On histopathology, 339 capsule-abutting lesions were found, including 54 with ECE. MRI correctly identified ECE in 36/54 capsule-abutting lesions, including nine of 18 with focal ECE and 27/36 with established ECE, giving sensitivities (95% confidence interval) of 67 (53-78)%, 50 (27-73)% and 75 (58-87)%, respectively. MRI incorrectly identified ECE in 27/285 (9%) capsule-abutting lesions without ECE. MRI sensitivity for per-lesion ECE identification was significantly associated only with histopathological LPD (P = 0.009). Fifty-one patients (29%) had ECE. MRI had a sensitivity (95% confidence interval) of 69 (54-81)% and specificity of 90 (83-94)% for per-patient ECE identification. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of MRI in per-lesion identification of prostate cancer ECE is significantly associated with the lesion LPD at histopathology.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of histopathological lesion characteristics on the sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for per-lesion identification of extracapsular extension (ECE) of prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 176 patients (median age 58.9 years, range 38-77) who underwent endorectal MRI before radical prostatectomy between January 2001 and July 2004, had no previous treatment and had whole-mount step-section pathological specimens showing at least one capsule-abutting lesion. The likelihood of ECE of capsule-abutting lesions was retrospectively scored from 1 to 5 based on radiologists' prospective MRI interpretations. Generalized estimating equation regression models were used to determine the effect of the following histological variables on the sensitivity of MRI for identifying ECE of capsule-abutting lesions: maximum diameter, largest perpendicular diameter (LPD), bi-dimensional diameter product, Gleason grade, and zonal extent. RESULTS: On histopathology, 339 capsule-abutting lesions were found, including 54 with ECE. MRI correctly identified ECE in 36/54 capsule-abutting lesions, including nine of 18 with focal ECE and 27/36 with established ECE, giving sensitivities (95% confidence interval) of 67 (53-78)%, 50 (27-73)% and 75 (58-87)%, respectively. MRI incorrectly identified ECE in 27/285 (9%) capsule-abutting lesions without ECE. MRI sensitivity for per-lesion ECE identification was significantly associated only with histopathological LPD (P = 0.009). Fifty-one patients (29%) had ECE. MRI had a sensitivity (95% confidence interval) of 69 (54-81)% and specificity of 90 (83-94)% for per-patientECE identification. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of MRI in per-lesion identification of prostate cancerECE is significantly associated with the lesion LPD at histopathology.
Authors: Gerald W Hull; Farhang Rabbani; Farhat Abbas; Thomas M Wheeler; Michael W Kattan; Peter T Scardino Journal: J Urol Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Hedvig Hricak; Liang Wang; David C Wei; Fergus V Coakley; Oguz Akin; Victor E Reuter; Mithat Gonen; Michael W Kattan; Chinyere N Onyebuchi; Peter T Scardino Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-06-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Tim Joseph; David A McKenna; Antonio C Westphalen; Fergus V Coakley; Shoujun Zhao; Ying Lu; I-Chow Hsu; Mack Roach; John Kurhanewicz Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-08-28 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: James A Eastham; Michael W Kattan; Elyn Riedel; Colin B Begg; Thomas M Wheeler; Claudia Gerigk; Mithat Gonen; Victor Reuter; Peter T Scardino Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ofer Yossepowitch; Kanishka Sircar; Peter T Scardino; Makoto Ohori; Michael W Kattan; Thomas M Wheeler; Victor E Reuter Journal: J Urol Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Marc R Engelbrecht; Gerrit J Jager; Robert J Laheij; André L M Verbeek; H J van Lier; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2002-04-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Matthew R Cooperberg; Deborah P Lubeck; Maxwell V Meng; Shilpa S Mehta; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Barış Türkbey; Marcelino Bernardo; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 2.630
Authors: Alfonso Gomez-Iturriaga; Juanita Crook; Francisco Casquero; Claudia Carvajal; Arantxa Urresola; Begoña Canteli; Ana Ezquerro; Eduardo Hortelano; Jon Cacicedo; Jose Maria Espinosa; Fernando Perez; Pablo Minguez; Pedro Bilbao Journal: J Contemp Brachytherapy Date: 2014-06-09