Literature DB >> 22952382

Performance characteristics of MR imaging in the evaluation of clinically low-risk prostate cancer: a prospective study.

Hebert Alberto Vargas1, Oguz Akin, Amita Shukla-Dave, Jingbo Zhang, Kristen L Zakian, Junting Zheng, Kent Kanao, Debra A Goldman, Chaya S Moskowitz, Victor E Reuter, James A Eastham, Peter T Scardino, Hedvig Hricak.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate diagnostic performance of T2-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging in detecting lesions stratified by pathologic volume and Gleason score in men with clinically determined low-risk prostate cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board approved this prospective, HIPAA-compliant study. Written informed consent was obtained from 183 men with clinically low-risk prostate cancer (cT1-cT2a, Gleason score≤6 at biopsy, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level<10 ng/mL [10 μg/L]) undergoing MR imaging before prostatectomy. By using a scale of 1-5 (score 1, definitely no tumor; score 5, definitely tumor), two radiologists independently scored likelihood of tumor per sextant on T2-weighted images. Two spectroscopists jointly recorded locations of lesions with metabolic features consistent with tumor on MR spectroscopic images. Whole-mount step-section histopathologic analysis constituted the reference standard. Diagnostic performance at sextant level (T2-weighted imaging) and detection sensitivities (T2-weighted imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging) for lesions of 0.5 cm3 or larger were calculated.
RESULTS: For T2-weighted imaging, areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for sextant-level detection were 0.77 (reader 1) and 0.82 (reader 2). For lesions of ≥0.5 cm3 and, 1<cm3, sensitivities were significantly lower when the lesion Gleason score was ≤6 (0.44 [reader 1] and 0.61 [reader 2]) rather than when the Gleason score was ≥7 (0.73, P=.02 [reader 1]; and 0.84, P=.05 [reader 2]). For lesions of ≥1 cm3, lesion Gleason score did not significantly affect sensitivity (0.83 [reader 1] and 1.00 [reader 2] for Gleason score≤6 vs 0.82 and 0.92 for Gleason score≥7; P≥.07). MR spectroscopic imaging sensitivity was low and was not significantly affected by pathologic lesion volume or Gleason score.
CONCLUSION: In men with clinically low-risk prostate cancer, detection of lesions of <1 cm3 with T2-weighted imaging is significantly dependent on lesion Gleason score; detection of lesions of ≥1 cm3 is significantly better than detection of smaller lesions and is not affected by lesion Gleason score. The role of MR spectroscopic imaging alone in this population is limited. © RSNA, 2012

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22952382      PMCID: PMC3480819          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12120041

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  41 in total

1.  Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly.

Authors:  Roderick C N van den Bergh; Stijn Roemeling; Monique J Roobol; Gunnar Aus; Jonas Hugosson; Antti S Rannikko; Teuvo L Tammela; Chris H Bangma; Fritz H Schröder
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2008-09-17       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 2.  Evolution from active surveillance to focal therapy in the management of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Uri Lindner; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Oscar Schatloff; John Trachtenberg; Arie Lindner
Journal:  Future Oncol       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.404

3.  Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images?

Authors:  Baris Turkbey; Vijay P Shah; Yuxi Pang; Marcelino Bernardo; Sheng Xu; Jochen Kruecker; Julia Locklin; Angelo A Baccala; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Maria J Merino; Joanna H Shih; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-12-21       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 4.  MRI for men undergoing active surveillance or with rising PSA and negative biopsies.

Authors:  Orit Raz; Masoom Haider; John Trachtenberg; Dan Leibovici; Nathan Lawrentschuk
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 14.432

5.  Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness.

Authors:  Hebert Alberto Vargas; Oguz Akin; Tobias Franiel; Yousef Mazaheri; Junting Zheng; Chaya Moskowitz; Kazuma Udo; James Eastham; Hedvig Hricak
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-03-24       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment.

Authors:  Mark S Soloway; Cynthia T Soloway; Ahmed Eldefrawy; Kristell Acosta; Bruce Kava; Murugesan Manoharan
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2010-08-20       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 7.  Critical review of prostate cancer predictive tools.

Authors:  Shahrokh F Shariat; Michael W Kattan; Andrew J Vickers; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  Future Oncol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.404

8.  Interactive dedicated training curriculum improves accuracy in the interpretation of MR imaging of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Oguz Akin; Christopher C Riedl; Nicole M Ishill; Chaya S Moskowitz; Jingbo Zhang; Hedvig Hricak
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Focal treatment or observation of prostate cancer: pretreatment accuracy of transrectal ultrasound biopsy and T2-weighted MRI.

Authors:  Lucas Nogueira; Liang Wang; Samson W Fine; Rodrigo Pinochet; Jordan M Kurta; Darren Katz; Caroline J Savage; Angel M Cronin; Hedvig Hricak; Peter T Scardino; Oguz Akin; Jonathan A Coleman
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2009-07-30       Impact factor: 2.649

10.  Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Laurence Klotz; Liying Zhang; Adam Lam; Robert Nam; Alexandre Mamedov; Andrew Loblaw
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-11-16       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  32 in total

1.  Computed diffusion-weighted imaging of the prostate at 3 T: impact on image quality and tumour detection.

Authors:  Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Hersh Chandarana; Nicole Hindman; Fang-Ming Deng; James S Babb; Samir S Taneja; Christian Geppert
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-06-12       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Evaluation of the ESUR PI-RADS scoring system for multiparametric MRI of the prostate with targeted MR/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy at 3.0 Tesla.

Authors:  M C Roethke; T H Kuru; S Schultze; D Tichy; A Kopp-Schneider; M Fenchel; H-P Schlemmer; B A Hadaschik
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-10-03       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Restriction spectrum imaging improves MRI-based prostate cancer detection.

Authors:  Kevin C McCammack; Natalie M Schenker-Ahmed; Nathan S White; Shaun R Best; Robert M Marks; Jared Heimbigner; Christopher J Kane; J Kellogg Parsons; Joshua M Kuperman; Hauke Bartsch; Rahul S Desikan; Rebecca A Rakow-Penner; Michael A Liss; Daniel J A Margolis; Steven S Raman; Ahmed Shabaik; Anders M Dale; David S Karow
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2016-05

4.  Exponential apparent diffusion coefficient in evaluating prostate cancer at 3 T: preliminary experience.

Authors:  Sung Y Park; Chan K Kim; Jung J Park; Byung K Park
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-12-10       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Role of Changes in Magnetic Resonance Imaging or Clinical Stage in Evaluation of Disease Progression for Men with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance.

Authors:  Gregory T Chesnut; Emily A Vertosick; Nicole Benfante; Daniel D Sjoberg; Jonathan Fainberg; Taehyoung Lee; James Eastham; Vincent Laudone; Peter Scardino; Karim Touijer; Andrew Vickers; Behfar Ehdaie
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2019-12-23       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 6.  [MRI of the prostate].

Authors:  D Nörenberg; O Solyanik; B Schlenker; G Magistro; B Ertl-Wagner; D A Clevert; C Stief; M F Reiser; M D'Anastasi
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 0.639

7.  The Efficacy of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy in Risk Classification for Patients with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance.

Authors:  Pedro Recabal; Melissa Assel; Daniel D Sjoberg; Daniel Lee; Vincent P Laudone; Karim Touijer; James A Eastham; Hebert A Vargas; Jonathan Coleman; Behfar Ehdaie
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-02-23       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Information of prostate biopsy positive core: does it affect MR detection of prostate cancer on using 3T-MRI?

Authors:  Rika Yoshida; Yasushi Kaji; Yukihisa Tamaki; Takashi Katsube; Hajime Kitagaki; Tsunehito Kanbara; Takao Kamai
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2015-03-12       Impact factor: 2.374

Review 9.  Defining the threshold for significant versus insignificant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Theo H Van der Kwast; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-05-28       Impact factor: 14.432

10.  [Prostate cancer].

Authors:  T Franiel; N Eckardt; M Waginger; M Horstmann
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 0.635

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.