PURPOSE: To determine the best combination of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) parameters for the detection of locally recurrent prostate cancer after external beam radiation therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our Institutional Review Board approved this study with a waiver of informed consent. Twenty-six patients with suspected recurrence due to biochemical failure were part of this research. The MR protocol included T2-weighted, MR spectroscopy, and diffusion-weighted MRI. Transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy was the standard of reference. We used logistic regression to model the probability of a positive outcome and generalized estimating equations to account for clustering. The diagnostic performance of imaging was described using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: The area under the ROC curve of MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) was 83.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 75.5-89.1). The combination of all MR techniques did not significantly improve the performance of imaging beyond the accuracy of MRSI alone, but a trend toward improved discrimination was noted (86.9%; 95% CI = 77.6-93.4; P = 0.09). CONCLUSION: Incorporation of MRSI to T2-weighted and/or diffusion-weighted MRI significantly improves the assessment of patients with suspected recurrence after radiotherapy and a combined approach with all three modalities may have the best diagnostic performance.
PURPOSE: To determine the best combination of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) parameters for the detection of locally recurrent prostate cancer after external beam radiation therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our Institutional Review Board approved this study with a waiver of informed consent. Twenty-six patients with suspected recurrence due to biochemical failure were part of this research. The MR protocol included T2-weighted, MR spectroscopy, and diffusion-weighted MRI. Transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy was the standard of reference. We used logistic regression to model the probability of a positive outcome and generalized estimating equations to account for clustering. The diagnostic performance of imaging was described using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: The area under the ROC curve of MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) was 83.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 75.5-89.1). The combination of all MR techniques did not significantly improve the performance of imaging beyond the accuracy of MRSI alone, but a trend toward improved discrimination was noted (86.9%; 95% CI = 77.6-93.4; P = 0.09). CONCLUSION: Incorporation of MRSI to T2-weighted and/or diffusion-weighted MRI significantly improves the assessment of patients with suspected recurrence after radiotherapy and a combined approach with all three modalities may have the best diagnostic performance.
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
Authors: Albert P Chen; Charles H Cunningham; John Kurhanewicz; Duan Xu; Ralph E Hurd; John M Pauly; Lucas Carvajal; Kostas Karpodinis; Daniel B Vigneron Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2006-05-02 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Darko Pucar; Amita Shukla-Dave; Hedvig Hricak; Chaya S Moskowitz; Kentaro Kuroiwa; Semra Olgac; Lanie E Ebora; Peter T Scardino; Jason A Koutcher; Kristen L Zakian Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-06-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Masoom A Haider; Peter Chung; Joan Sweet; Ants Toi; Kartik Jhaveri; Cynthia Ménard; Padraig Warde; John Trachtenberg; Gina Lockwood; Michael Milosevic Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-09-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Eric M Horwitz; Kyounghwa Bae; Gerald E Hanks; Arthur Porter; David J Grignon; Harmar D Brereton; Varagur Venkatesan; Colleen A Lawton; Seth A Rosenthal; Howard M Sandler; William U Shipley Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-04-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: N M deSouza; S F Riches; N J Vanas; V A Morgan; S A Ashley; C Fisher; G S Payne; C Parker Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2008-04-18 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: M Abd-Alazeez; N Ramachandran; N Dikaios; H U Ahmed; M Emberton; A Kirkham; M Arya; S Taylor; S Halligan; S Punwani Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2015-02-03 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Olivio F Donati; Sung Il Jung; Hebert Alberto Vargas; David H Gultekin; Junting Zheng; Chaya S Moskowitz; Hedvig Hricak; Michael J Zelefsky; Oguz Akin Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-03-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: John V Hegde; Robert V Mulkern; Lawrence P Panych; Fiona M Fennessy; Andriy Fedorov; Stephan E Maier; Clare M C Tempany Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Kinzya Grant; Maria L Lindenberg; Haytham Shebel; Yuxi Pang; Harsh K Agarwal; Marcelino Bernardo; Karen A Kurdziel; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-05-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: V Y Zhang; A Westphalen; L Delos Santos; Z L Tabatabai; K Shinohara; D B Vigneron; J Kurhanewicz Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2013-08-12 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Kiaran P McGee; Ken-Pin Hwang; Daniel C Sullivan; John Kurhanewicz; Yanle Hu; Jihong Wang; Wen Li; Josef Debbins; Eric Paulson; Jeffrey R Olsen; Chia-Ho Hua; Lizette Warner; Daniel Ma; Eduardo Moros; Neelam Tyagi; Caroline Chung Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Jie-Ying Kowa; Neil Soneji; S Aslam Sohaib; Erik Mayer; Stephen Hazell; Nicholas Butterfield; Joshua Shur; Derfel Ap Dafydd Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-02-15 Impact factor: 3.039