Literature DB >> 22498205

Prostate cancer foci detected on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging are histologically distinct from those not detected.

Andrew B Rosenkrantz1, Savvas Mendrinos, James S Babb, Samir S Taneja.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We identified histological differences between prostate cancer foci that are detected and missed using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 49 patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, including T2-weighted imaging, including diffusion weighted imaging and dynamic contrast enhanced imaging, before prostatectomy were enrolled in the study. One radiologist identified areas highly suspicious for tumor. One pathologist identified and categorized tumors in terms of size, Gleason score, solid tumor growth, intermixed benign glands, loose stroma, desmoplastic stroma and a high malignant epithelium-to-stroma ratio. Differences between detected and missed tumors were assessed using logistic regression analyses based on generalized estimating equations for correlated data.
RESULTS: All histological features showed significant differences between detected and missed tumors on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (p<0.0001). Independent predictors of detection on multivariate analysis were size (OR 5.38, p=0.0077), Gleason score (OR 5.12, p=0.0094) and solid growth (OR 17.83, p<0.0001). Size, Gleason score and loose stroma were significant predictors of identification with diffusion weighted imaging on univariate analysis (p≤0.0245), while Gleason score (OR 17.05, p=0.0212) and solid growth (OR 34.90, p=0.0103) were independent predictors of identification with diffusion weighted imaging on multivariate analysis. Identification with T2-weighted imaging was associated with size and Gleason score (p≤0.01876). Identification with dynamic contrast enhanced imaging was associated with intermixed benign epithelium, loose stroma and a high malignant epithelium-to-stroma ratio (p≤0.0499). No combination of features served as independent predictors on multivariate analysis for T2-weighted imaging or dynamic contrast enhanced imaging.
CONCLUSIONS: There are fundamental histological differences between detected and missed prostate tumors using magnetic resonance imaging. Insights into these differences may facilitate the prospective role of magnetic resonance imaging in counseling and treatment selection for patients with prostate cancer.
Copyright © 2012 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22498205     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.01.074

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  29 in total

1.  Preliminary experience with a novel method of three-dimensional co-registration of prostate cancer digital histology and in vivo multiparametric MRI.

Authors:  C Orczyk; H Rusinek; A B Rosenkrantz; A Mikheev; F-M Deng; J Melamed; S S Taneja
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2013-08-28       Impact factor: 2.350

2.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging Underestimation of Prostate Cancer Geometry: Use of Patient Specific Molds to Correlate Images with Whole Mount Pathology.

Authors:  Alan Priester; Shyam Natarajan; Pooria Khoshnoodi; Daniel J Margolis; Steven S Raman; Robert E Reiter; Jiaoti Huang; Warren Grundfest; Leonard S Marks
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-07-30       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  How to make clinical decisions to avoid unnecessary prostate screening in biopsy-naïve men with PI-RADs v2 score ≤ 3?

Authors:  Yu Zhang; Na Zeng; FengBo Zhang; YangXinRui Huang; Ye Tian
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-08-31       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 4.  Spatial Tracking of Targeted Prostate Biopsy Locations: Moving Towards Effective Focal Partial Prostate Gland Ablation with Improved Treatment Planning.

Authors:  Steven Sidelsky; Shaan Setia; Srinivas Vourganti
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-10-18       Impact factor: 3.092

5.  Correlation between MRI phenotypes and a genomic classifier of prostate cancer: preliminary findings.

Authors:  Andrei S Purysko; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Omar Y Mian; Sarah Sittenfeld; Elai Davicioni; Marguerite du Plessis; Christine Buerki; Jennifer Bullen; Lin Li; Anant Madabhushi; Andrew Stephenson; Eric A Klein
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-03-07       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Prostate tumour volumes: evaluation of the agreement between magnetic resonance imaging and histology using novel co-registration software.

Authors:  Julien Le Nobin; Clément Orczyk; Fang-Ming Deng; Jonathan Melamed; Henry Rusinek; Samir S Taneja; Andrew B Rosenkrantz
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2014-07-27       Impact factor: 5.588

7.  Influence of imaging and histological factors on prostate cancer detection and localisation on multiparametric MRI: a prospective study.

Authors:  Flavie Bratan; Emilie Niaf; Christelle Melodelima; Anne Laure Chesnais; Rémi Souchon; Florence Mège-Lechevallier; Marc Colombel; Olivier Rouvière
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-03-15       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Steering Committee: PI-RADS v2 Status Update and Future Directions.

Authors:  Anwar R Padhani; Jeffrey Weinreb; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Geert Villeirs; Baris Turkbey; Jelle Barentsz
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2018-06-13       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 9.  Targeted Anterior Gland Focal Therapy-a Novel Treatment Option for a Better Defined Disease.

Authors:  Kae Jack Tay; Arnauld Villers; Thomas J Polascik
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 10.  Prostate focused ultrasound focal therapy--imaging for the future.

Authors:  Olivier Rouvière; Albert Gelet; Sébastien Crouzet; Jean-Yves Chapelon
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-08-21       Impact factor: 66.675

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.