Literature DB >> 22109291

Endorectal MRI of prostate cancer: incremental prognostic importance of gross locally advanced disease.

Valdair F Muglia1, Antonio C Westphalen, Zhen J Wang, John Kurhanewicz, Peter R Carroll, Fergus V Coakley.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency and incremental prognostic importance of gross locally advanced disease seen at endorectal MRI in patients with prostate cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified the cases of all patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer who underwent pretreatment endorectal MRI over a 6-year period (n = 1777). Three experienced radiologists identified by consensus patients with gross locally advanced disease, defined as unequivocal extracapsular extension or unequivocal seminal vesicle invasion. Outcome among these patients was compared with that in a control group without gross locally advanced disease matched by D'Amico risk stratification.
RESULTS: Sixty-six of 1777 (3.7%) patients had gross locally advanced disease. One of 1085 (0.1%) patients had low-risk disease, 25 of 489 (5.1%) had intermediate-risk disease, and 40 of 203 (19.7%) had high-risk disease. Follow-up data were available for 44 of these 66 patients. During a median follow-up period of 79 months, biochemical failure and metastasis had developed in 17 and 6 of these 44 patients compared with 9 and none of the 65 patients in the control group (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Almost 4% of patients with prostate cancer, particularly those with intermediate- and high-risk disease, have gross locally advanced disease at endorectal MRI and have a significantly worse prognosis than matched controls. These patients may be candidates for more aggressive treatment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22109291      PMCID: PMC3703946          DOI: 10.2214/AJR.11.6425

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  26 in total

1.  Determination of prostate volume with transrectal US for cancer screening. Part II. Accuracy of in vitro and in vivo techniques.

Authors:  P J Littrup; C R Williams; T K Egglin; R A Kane
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1991-04       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  The utility of magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for predicting insignificant prostate cancer: an initial analysis.

Authors:  Amita Shukla-Dave; Hedvig Hricak; Michael W Kattan; Darko Pucar; Kentaro Kuroiwa; Hui-Ni Chen; Jessica Spector; Jason A Koutcher; Kristen L Zakian; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2007-01-12       Impact factor: 5.588

3.  Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference.

Authors:  Mack Roach; Gerald Hanks; Howard Thames; Paul Schellhammer; William U Shipley; Gerald H Sokol; Howard Sandler
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2006-07-15       Impact factor: 7.038

4.  Note on an exact treatment of contingency, goodness of fit and other problems of significance.

Authors:  G H FREEMAN; J H HALTON
Journal:  Biometrika       Date:  1951-06       Impact factor: 2.445

5.  Pretreatment nomogram for prostate-specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy or external-beam radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  A V D'Amico; R Whittington; S B Malkowicz; J Fondurulia; M H Chen; I Kaplan; C J Beard; J E Tomaszewski; A A Renshaw; A Wein; C N Coleman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 6.  Prospective evaluation of men with stage T1C adenocarcinoma of the prostate.

Authors:  H B Carter; J Sauvageot; P C Walsh; J I Epstein
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg; David J Pasta; Eric P Elkin; Mark S Litwin; David M Latini; Janeen Du Chane; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 8.  Comparison of digital rectal examination and biopsy results with the radical prostatectomy specimen.

Authors:  C Obek; P Louis; F Civantos; M S Soloway
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Local staging of prostate cancer with endorectal MR imaging: correlation with histopathology.

Authors:  G J Jager; E T Ruijter; C A van de Kaa; J J de la Rosette; G O Oosterhof; J R Thornbury; J O Barentsz
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Prostate cancer: role of pretreatment MR in predicting outcome after external-beam radiation therapy--initial experience.

Authors:  David A McKenna; Fergus V Coakley; Antonio C Westphalen; Shoujun Zhao; Ying Lu; Emily M Webb; Barby Pickett; Mack Roach; John Kurhanewicz
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-02-07       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  3 in total

1.  Artificial intelligence is a promising prospect for the detection of prostate cancer extracapsular extension with mpMRI: a two-center comparative study.

Authors:  Ying Hou; Yi-Hong Zhang; Jie Bao; Mei-Ling Bao; Guang Yang; Hai-Bin Shi; Yang Song; Yu-Dong Zhang
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2021-05-21       Impact factor: 9.236

2.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of prostate: the evolution of a technique.

Authors:  Valdair Francisco Muglia
Journal:  Radiol Bras       Date:  2014 Sep-Oct

3.  Prediction of Pathologic Findings with MRI-Based Clinical Staging Using the Bayesian Network Modeling in Prostate Cancer: A Radiation Oncologist Perspective.

Authors:  Chan Woo Wee; Bum-Sup Jang; Jin Ho Kim; Chang Wook Jeong; Cheol Kwak; Hyun Hoe Kim; Ja Hyeon Ku; Seung Hyup Kim; Jeong Yeon Cho; Sang Youn Kim
Journal:  Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-05-17       Impact factor: 4.679

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.