Literature DB >> 21906966

Combined magnetic resonance spectroscopy and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging for prostate cancer detection.

Sisto Perdonà1, Giuseppe Di Lorenzo, Riccardo Autorino, Carlo Buonerba, Marco De Sio, Sergio Venanzio Setola, Roberta Fusco, Francesco Michele Ronza, Michele Caraglia, Matteo Ferro, Antonella Petrillo.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The use of magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging (MRSI) and dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) have emerged as a valid diagnostic tools for prostate cancer (CaP).
METHODS: Men with PSA levels below 10 ng/ml were enrolled in a prospective cohort study and underwent combined MRSI and DCE-MRI and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Imaging was performed using a 1.5 T MR scanner (Symphony TIM; Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) with an endorectal coil (Medrad; Pittsburg, PA), inflated with 60 cc of air. Three-dimensional magnetic resonance spectroscopic data were acquired by using water and a lipid-suppressed double-spin-echo point-resolved spectroscopy sequence, which was optimized for quantitative detection of both choline and citrate. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI sequences were obtained with 3D T1-weighted FLASH images before and during rapid bolus administration of intravenous paramagnetic contrast medium gadoteric acid. Specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were computed considering patients, each of the 2 lobes, each of the 6 sextants, and each 12th part of the prostate gland as single measurements.
RESULTS: Overall, 106 patients were included in the analysis. Median age was 65.9 years (range, 61.2-70.5 years) and median PSA level at study entry was 7.1 ng/ml (range, 2.5-9.9). CaP was detected at biopsy in 24 patients (22.6 % of the population) with a median Gleason score of 8 (range 4-10). Diagnostic accuracy of combined MRSI and DCE-MRI was 85%, sensitivity was 71%, and specificity was 48%, considering patients as single measurements, with a negative predictive value of 91%, but a positive predictive value of only 19%. Positive predictive value of the examination improved to 25% for patients who repeated biopsy.
CONCLUSIONS: Although this study confirms the potential usefulness of MRI for the diagnosis of CaP, the positive predictive value obtained was unacceptably low due to the high number of false positives recorded. Nevertheless, the high negative predictive value of the examination may serve to avoid unnecessary biopsies. Future research should be directed at assessing the value of combining MRI-based techniques with novel biochemical markers for the diagnosis of CaP in patients with low PSA levels.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Magnetic resonance; Prostate cancer; Spectroscopy

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21906966     DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.07.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Oncol        ISSN: 1078-1439            Impact factor:   3.498


  7 in total

Review 1.  The emerging role of obesity, diet and lipid metabolism in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Matteo Ferro; Daniela Terracciano; Carlo Buonerba; Giuseppe Lucarelli; Danilo Bottero; Sisto Perdonà; Riccardo Autorino; Alessandro Serino; Francesco Cantiello; Rocco Damiano; Iulia Andras; Sabino De Placido; Giuseppe Di Lorenzo; Michele Battaglia; Barbara A Jereczek-Fossa; Vincenzo Mirone; Ottavio De Cobelli
Journal:  Future Oncol       Date:  2016-09-14       Impact factor: 3.404

2.  Usefulness of a combined approach of t1-weighted, t2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced, and diffusion-weighted imaging in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Byung Dal Min; Won Tae Kim; Bum Sang Cho; Yong-June Kim; Seok Joong Yun; Sang-Cheol Lee; Wun-Jae Kim
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2012-12-20

Review 3.  A systematic review on multiparametric MR imaging in prostate cancer detection.

Authors:  Roberta Fusco; Mario Sansone; Vincenza Granata; Sergio Venanzio Setola; Antonella Petrillo
Journal:  Infect Agent Cancer       Date:  2017-10-30       Impact factor: 2.965

4.  Diagnostic value and relative weight of sequence-specific magnetic resonance features in characterizing clinically significant prostate cancers.

Authors:  Olivier Rouvière; Tristan Dagonneau; Fanny Cros; Flavie Bratan; Laurent Roche; Florence Mège-Lechevallier; Alain Ruffion; Sébastien Crouzet; Marc Colombel; Muriel Rabilloud
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-06-09       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Multiparametric MRI reporting using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.0 (PI-RADSv2) retains clinical efficacy in a predominantly post-biopsy patient population.

Authors:  Edwin Jonathan Aslim; Yan Mee Law; Puay Hoon Tan; John Carson Allen; Lionel Tim-Ee Cheng; Viswanath Anand Chidambaram; Li Yan Khor; Benjamin Yongcheng Tan; Ernest Wencong Eu; Christopher Wai Sam Cheng; John Shyi Peng Yuen; Henry Sun Sien Ho; Lui Shiong Lee
Journal:  Asian J Urol       Date:  2018-06-01

6.  Histogram analysis of prostate cancer on dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: A preliminary study emphasizing on zonal difference.

Authors:  Chih-Ching Lai; Pin-Hsun Huang; Fu-Nien Wang; Shu-Huei Shen; Hsin-Kai Wang; Hsian-Tzu Liu; Hsiao-Jen Chung; Tzu-Ping Lin; Yen-Hwa Chang; Chin-Chen Pan; Shin-Lei Peng
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-02-12       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Prevalence and Risk Factors of Prostate Cancer in Chinese Men with PSA 4-10 ng/mL Who Underwent TRUS-Guided Prostate Biopsy: The Utilization of PAMD Score.

Authors:  Dong Fang; Da Ren; Chenglin Zhao; Xuesong Li; Wei Yu; Rui Wang; Huihui Wang; Chenguang Xi; Qun He; Xiaoying Wang; Zhongcheng Xin; Liqun Zhou
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-10-18       Impact factor: 3.411

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.