Literature DB >> 21233291

Areas suspicious for prostate cancer: MR-guided biopsy in patients with at least one transrectal US-guided biopsy with a negative finding--multiparametric MR imaging for detection and biopsy planning.

Tobias Franiel1, Carsten Stephan, Andreas Erbersdobler, Ekkehart Dietz, Andreas Maxeiner, Nina Hell, Alexander Huppertz, Kurt Miller, Ralph Strecker, Bernd Hamm.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To prospectively investigate the incremental value of multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging compared with standard T2-weighted imaging for biopsy planning.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by the institutional review board; informed consent was obtained. Consecutive patients underwent T2-weighted imaging supplemented with multiparametric 1.5-T MR imaging, consisting of hydrogen 1 ((1)H) MR spectroscopy, diffusion-weighted (DW) imaging, and contrast material-enhanced MR imaging. Quantitative parameters were calculated: (choline plus creatine)-to-citrate ratio, apparent diffusion coefficient, and volume transfer constant and exchange rate constant. The prostate was divided into 20 standardized areas. Each area was classified as benign, inconclusive, or suspicious at T2-weighted imaging, followed by quantitative evaluation of all inconclusive and suspicious areas with multiparametric MR imaging. MR-guided biopsy was performed in lesions classified as suspicious for cancer with at least one of the techniques after transfer to three-dimensional T2-weighted images. Diagnostic parameters were calculated on a per-lesion and per-patient basis for all combinations of T2-weighted imaging with multiparametric MR imaging.
RESULTS: Fifty-four patients had a median of two prior transrectal ultrasonographic biopsies with negative findings. Each patient had a median of three suspicious lesions. Prostate cancer was demonstrated in 21 of 54 patients. Biopsy was performed in 178 lesions; 53 were positive for prostate cancer. Detection rates and test negative results, respectively, were as follows: T2-weighted imaging, 70% and 50%; T2-weighted imaging and (1)H MR spectroscopy, 81% and 32%; T2-weighted imaging and contrast-enhanced MR imaging, 83% and 29%; T2-weighted imaging and DW imaging, 85% and 30%; T2-weighted imaging, (1)H MR spectroscopy, and contrast-enhanced MR imaging, 91% and 13%; T2-weighted imaging, (1)H MR spectroscopy, and DW imaging, 94% and 15%; T2-weighted imaging, DW imaging, and contrast-enhanced MR imaging, 94% and 13%; T2-weighted imaging, (1)H MR spectroscopy, DW imaging, and contrast-enhanced MR imaging, 100% and 0%.
CONCLUSION: Only the combination of T2-weighted imaging with all three multiparametric techniques depicts all identifiable prostate cancers; a double combination with DW imaging and (1)H MR spectroscopy or contrast-enhanced MR imaging misses 6%, while reasonably reducing the number of areas needing biopsy. © RSNA, 2011.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21233291     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10101251

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


  51 in total

1.  Transatlantic Consensus Group on active surveillance and focal therapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Hashim U Ahmed; Oguz Akin; Jonathan A Coleman; Sarah Crane; Mark Emberton; Larry Goldenberg; Hedvig Hricak; Mike W Kattan; John Kurhanewicz; Caroline M Moore; Chris Parker; Thomas J Polascik; Peter Scardino; Nicholas van As; Arnauld Villers
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-11-11       Impact factor: 5.588

2.  [Standardised scoring of a multi-parametric 3-T MRI for a targeted MRI-guided prostate biopsy].

Authors:  C Arsov; D Blondin; R Rabenalt; G Antoch; P Albers; M Quentin
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 0.639

3.  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

4.  Inter-reader agreement of the ESUR score for prostate MRI using in-bore MRI-guided biopsies as the reference standard.

Authors:  L Schimmöller; M Quentin; C Arsov; R S Lanzman; A Hiester; R Rabenalt; G Antoch; P Albers; D Blondin
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-06-12       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 5.  Current trends and new frontiers in focal therapy for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Melissa H Mendez; Daniel Y Joh; Rajan Gupta; Thomas J Polascik
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 3.092

6.  [Magnetic resonance tomography-guided interventional procedure for diagnosis of prostate cancer].

Authors:  M Schernthaner; T H Helbich; B J Fueger; M Margreiter; M Memarsadeghi; A Stiglbauer; H-G Linhart; A Doan; K Pinker; P Brader
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 7.  Recent advances in imaging-guided interventions for prostate cancers.

Authors:  Xia Wu; Feng Zhang; Ran Chen; Weiliang Zheng; Xiaoming Yang
Journal:  Cancer Lett       Date:  2014-04-24       Impact factor: 8.679

8.  Role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Kinzya B Grant; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 9.  Positron emission tomography in imaging evaluation of staging, restaging, treatment response, and prognosis in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Hossein Jadvar
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2016-05

10.  Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen.

Authors:  Geoffrey A Sonn; Edward Chang; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J Margolis; Malu Macairan; Patricia Lieu; Jiaoti Huang; Frederick J Dorey; Robert E Reiter; Leonard S Marks
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2013-03-17       Impact factor: 20.096

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.