PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of presurgical endorectal MRI (eMRI) for local staging before radical prostatectomy (RP) and its influence on neurovascular bundle (NVB) resection during radical prostatectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 385 patients with histologically proven prostate cancer (PCa) have been included in this retrospective study between 2004 and 2008. All patients underwent preoperative eMRI at 1.5 T before open RP. Staging results by eMRI were compared with the histopathological findings. The presence of positive surgical margins and extent of nerve-sparing procedure were evaluated. Subgroup analysis of low-risk group and intermediate to high-risk group based on D'Amico criteria was conducted. RESULTS: In 294 (76.4%) patients, pathological stage was correctly predicted, 69 patients (17.9%) were understaged and 22 (5.7%) overstaged. Overall sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive value for predicting extracapsular extension (ECE) were 41.5, 91.8, 78.0 and 69.0%, respectively. One hundred and fifty-two (48.4%) of the patients classified as stage cT2 by eMRI underwent bilateral NVB sparing, whereas 14 (19.7%) patients with reported ECE underwent bilateral NVB sparing (P < 0.01). Overall positive surgical margin rate was 14.8%. Sensitivity of predicting ECE and positive predictive value were lower in the low-risk group than in the intermediate and high-risk group. CONCLUSIONS: eMRI is effective in predicting extracapsular extension in an intermediate to high-risk group. Preoperative eMRI in patients with low-risk criteria is not recommended as a routine assessment modality. eMRI findings did appear to influence surgical strategy as patients with imaging findings suggesting >cT2 disease were less likely to undergo NVB sparing.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of presurgical endorectal MRI (eMRI) for local staging before radical prostatectomy (RP) and its influence on neurovascular bundle (NVB) resection during radical prostatectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 385 patients with histologically proven prostate cancer (PCa) have been included in this retrospective study between 2004 and 2008. All patients underwent preoperative eMRI at 1.5 T before open RP. Staging results by eMRI were compared with the histopathological findings. The presence of positive surgical margins and extent of nerve-sparing procedure were evaluated. Subgroup analysis of low-risk group and intermediate to high-risk group based on D'Amico criteria was conducted. RESULTS: In 294 (76.4%) patients, pathological stage was correctly predicted, 69 patients (17.9%) were understaged and 22 (5.7%) overstaged. Overall sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive value for predicting extracapsular extension (ECE) were 41.5, 91.8, 78.0 and 69.0%, respectively. One hundred and fifty-two (48.4%) of the patients classified as stage cT2 by eMRI underwent bilateral NVB sparing, whereas 14 (19.7%) patients with reported ECE underwent bilateral NVB sparing (P < 0.01). Overall positive surgical margin rate was 14.8%. Sensitivity of predicting ECE and positive predictive value were lower in the low-risk group than in the intermediate and high-risk group. CONCLUSIONS: eMRI is effective in predicting extracapsular extension in an intermediate to high-risk group. Preoperative eMRI in patients with low-risk criteria is not recommended as a routine assessment modality. eMRI findings did appear to influence surgical strategy as patients with imaging findings suggesting >cT2 disease were less likely to undergo NVB sparing.
Authors: Friedrich Aigner; Leo Pallwein; Alexandre Pelzer; Georg Schaefer; Georg Bartsch; Dieter zur Nedden; Ferdinand Frauscher Journal: World J Urol Date: 2007-06-14 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Apostolos P Labanaris; Vahudin Zugor; Sami Takriti; Robert Smiszek; Karl Engelhard; Reinhold Nutzel; Reinhard Kuhn Journal: Scand J Urol Nephrol Date: 2009
Authors: Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Samir S Taneja; Geert Villeirs; Inderbir S Gill; Clare Allen; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore; Veeru Kasivisvanathan Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Matthew J Watson; Arvin K George; Mahir Maruf; Thomas P Frye; Akhil Muthigi; Michael Kongnyuy; Subin G Valayil; Peter A Pinto Journal: Future Oncol Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 3.404
Authors: Jennifer Salerno; Antonio Finelli; Chris Morash; Scott C Morgan; Nicholas Power; Nichola Schieda; Masoom A Haider Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2016-10-13 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: John V Hegde; Ming-Hui Chen; Robert V Mulkern; Fiona M Fennessy; Anthony V D'Amico; Clare M C Tempany Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-10-03 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Sherif Mehralivand; Joanna H Shih; Stephanie Harmon; Clayton Smith; Jonathan Bloom; Marcin Czarniecki; Samuel Gold; Graham Hale; Kareem Rayn; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-01-22 Impact factor: 11.105