OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) performed in men without a biopsy-proven diagnosis of prostate cancer using follow-up biopsy as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients without biopsy-proven cancer and who underwent MRI were included. In all patients, MRI was performed at 3T using a pelvic phased-array coil and included T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging, and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging. Thirteen had undergone no previous biopsy, and 29 had undergone at least 1 previous negative biopsy. All patients underwent prostate biopsy following MRI. Two fellowship-trained radiologists in consensus reviewed all cases and categorized each lobe as positive or negative for tumor. These interpretations were correlated with findings on post-MRI biopsy. RESULTS: Follow-up biopsy was positive in 23 lobes in 15 patients (36% of study cohort). On a per-patient basis, MRI had a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 74%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 68%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 100%. On a per-lobe basis, MRI had a sensitivity of 65%, specificity of 84%, PPV of 60%, and NPV of 86%. There was a nearly significant association between Gleason score and tumor detection on MRI (P = 0.072). CONCLUSIONS: In our sample, MRI had 100% sensitivity in predicting the presence of tumor on subsequent biopsy on a per-patient basis, suggesting a possible role for MRI in selecting patients with an elevated prostatic specific antigen (PSA) to undergo prostate biopsy. However, MRI had weaker specificity for prediction of a subsequent positive biopsy, as well as weaker sensitivity for tumor on a per-lobe basis, indicating that in patients with a positive MRI result, tissue sampling remains necessary for confirmation of the diagnosis as well as for treatment planning.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) performed in men without a biopsy-proven diagnosis of prostate cancer using follow-up biopsy as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients without biopsy-proven cancer and who underwent MRI were included. In all patients, MRI was performed at 3T using a pelvic phased-array coil and included T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging, and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging. Thirteen had undergone no previous biopsy, and 29 had undergone at least 1 previous negative biopsy. All patients underwent prostate biopsy following MRI. Two fellowship-trained radiologists in consensus reviewed all cases and categorized each lobe as positive or negative for tumor. These interpretations were correlated with findings on post-MRI biopsy. RESULTS: Follow-up biopsy was positive in 23 lobes in 15 patients (36% of study cohort). On a per-patient basis, MRI had a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 74%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 68%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 100%. On a per-lobe basis, MRI had a sensitivity of 65%, specificity of 84%, PPV of 60%, and NPV of 86%. There was a nearly significant association between Gleason score and tumor detection on MRI (P = 0.072). CONCLUSIONS: In our sample, MRI had 100% sensitivity in predicting the presence of tumor on subsequent biopsy on a per-patient basis, suggesting a possible role for MRI in selecting patients with an elevated prostatic specific antigen (PSA) to undergo prostate biopsy. However, MRI had weaker specificity for prediction of a subsequent positive biopsy, as well as weaker sensitivity for tumor on a per-lobe basis, indicating that in patients with a positive MRI result, tissue sampling remains necessary for confirmation of the diagnosis as well as for treatment planning.
Authors: Matthew D Greer; Joanna H Shih; Tristan Barrett; Sandra Bednarova; Ismail Kabakus; Yan Mee Law; Haytham Shebel; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Daniel Junker; Georg Schäfer; Michael Edlinger; Christian Kremser; Jasmin Bektic; Wolfgang Horninger; Werner Jaschke; Friedrich Aigner Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2013-12-16 Impact factor: 3.411