PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of using magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection without using a contrast material. MATERIALS AND METHODS: T2-weighted imaging (T2WI), diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (DCEI) were performed using a phased-array coil at 1.5 T. These examinations were performed in 178 patients with elevated serum prostate-specific antigen levels ( > 4.0 ng/mL) before systematic needle biopsy. Two radiologists independently evaluated images from DWI, DCEI, and a combination of the two techniques by referring to a T2WI image and by using a predefined confidence scale for cancer detection. The right and left halves of the peripheral zone and the central gland were separately rated. The diagnostic performance (A < sub > z < /sub > ) of each technique was assessed by analyzing their associated area under the receiver operating characteristic curves. The results of a biopsy served as a reference standard. RESULTS: Prostate cancer was detected in 72 (40.4%) of the 178 patients. For the entire prostate, the diagnostic performances of DWI (Az = 0.848) (P < 0.001) and the combined technique (Az = 0.845) (P < 0.001) were significantly more accurate than that of DCEI (Az = 0.746). DWI (74.8%) (P < 0.001) and the combined technique (72.9%) (P < 0.001) were significantly more sensitive than DCEI (52.8%). The numbers of cancer lesions that were interpreted using only DWI or DCEI were 83 (26.1%) and 13 (4.1%) of the 318 study lesions, respectively. CONCLUSION: DWI and the combined technique are more accurate and sensitive than DCEI in the detection of prostate cancer; however, DWI and DCEI play complementary roles in the accurate detection of prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of using magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection without using a contrast material. MATERIALS AND METHODS: T2-weighted imaging (T2WI), diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (DCEI) were performed using a phased-array coil at 1.5 T. These examinations were performed in 178 patients with elevated serum prostate-specific antigen levels ( > 4.0 ng/mL) before systematic needle biopsy. Two radiologists independently evaluated images from DWI, DCEI, and a combination of the two techniques by referring to a T2WI image and by using a predefined confidence scale for cancer detection. The right and left halves of the peripheral zone and the central gland were separately rated. The diagnostic performance (A < sub > z < /sub > ) of each technique was assessed by analyzing their associated area under the receiver operating characteristic curves. The results of a biopsy served as a reference standard. RESULTS:Prostate cancer was detected in 72 (40.4%) of the 178 patients. For the entire prostate, the diagnostic performances of DWI (Az = 0.848) (P < 0.001) and the combined technique (Az = 0.845) (P < 0.001) were significantly more accurate than that of DCEI (Az = 0.746). DWI (74.8%) (P < 0.001) and the combined technique (72.9%) (P < 0.001) were significantly more sensitive than DCEI (52.8%). The numbers of cancer lesions that were interpreted using only DWI or DCEI were 83 (26.1%) and 13 (4.1%) of the 318 study lesions, respectively. CONCLUSION: DWI and the combined technique are more accurate and sensitive than DCEI in the detection of prostate cancer; however, DWI and DCEI play complementary roles in the accurate detection of prostate cancer.
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: Hebert Alberto Vargas; Oguz Akin; Tobias Franiel; Debra A Goldman; Kazuma Udo; Karim A Touijer; Victor E Reuter; Hedvig Hricak Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Matthew D Greer; Joanna H Shih; Nathan Lay; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo Kayat Bittencourt; Samuel Borofsky; Ismail M Kabakus; Yan Mee Law; Jamie Marko; Haytham Shebel; Francesca V Mertan; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Ronald M Summers; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Shivani Pahwa; Nicholas K Schiltz; Lee E Ponsky; Ziang Lu; Mark A Griswold; Vikas Gulani Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-05-17 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Gonzalo Romero; Bryan R Foster; David R Pettersson; Alice W Fung; Alexander R Guimaraes; Fergus V Coakley Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2016-01-28 Impact factor: 1.605