Literature DB >> 23143029

Transition zone prostate cancer: detection and localization with 3-T multiparametric MR imaging.

Caroline M A Hoeks1, Thomas Hambrock, Derya Yakar, Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa, Ton Feuth, J Alfred Witjes, Jurgen J Fütterer, Jelle O Barentsz.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare transition zone (TZ) cancer detection and localization accuracy of 3-T T2-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with that of multiparametric (MP) MR imaging, with radical prostatectomy specimens as the reference standard.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The informed consent requirement was waived by the institutional review board. Inclusion criteria were radical prostatectomy specimen TZ cancer larger than 0.5 cm(3) and 3-T endorectal presurgery MP MR imaging (T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted [DW] imaging apparent diffusion coefficient [ADC] maps [b < 1000 sec/mm(2)], and dynamic contrast material-enhanced [DCE] MR imaging). From 197 patients with radical prostatectomy specimens, 28 patients with TZ cancer were included. Thirty-five patients without TZ cancer were randomly selected as a control group. Four radiologists randomly scored T2-weighted and DW ADC images, T2-weighted and DCE MR images, and T2-weighted, DW ADC, and DCE MR images. TZ cancer suspicion was rated on a five-point scale in six TZ regions of interest (ROIs). A score of 4-5 was considered a positive finding. A score of 4 or higher for any ROI containing TZ cancer was considered a positive detection result at the patient level. Generalized estimating equations were used to analyze detection and localization accuracy by using ROI-receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analyses for the latter. Gleason grade (GG) 4-5 and GG 2-3 cancers were analyzed separately.
RESULTS: Detection accuracy did not differ between T2-weighted and MP MR imaging for all TZ cancers (68% vs 66%, P = .85), GG 4-5 TZ cancers (79% vs 72%-75%, P = .13), and GG 2-3 TZ cancers (66% vs 62%-65%, P = .47). MP MR imaging (area under the ROC curve, 0.70-0.77) did not improve T2-weighted imaging localization accuracy (AUC = 0.72) (P > .05).
CONCLUSION: Use of 3-T MP MR imaging, consisting of T2-weighted imaging, DW imaging ADC maps (b values, 50, 500, and 800 sec/mm(2)), and DCE MR imaging may not improve TZ cancer detection and localization accuracy compared with T2-weighted imaging. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.12120281/-/DC1. RSNA, 2012

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23143029     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12120281

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


  64 in total

1.  Prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma: an aggressive tumour variant unrecognized on T2 weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Authors:  Nicola Schieda; Niamh Coffey; Previn Gulavita; Omran Al-Dandan; Wael Shabana; Trevor A Flood
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  A Multireader Exploratory Evaluation of Individual Pulse Sequence Cancer Detection on Prostate Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI).

Authors:  Sonia Gaur; Stephanie Harmon; Rajan T Gupta; Daniel J Margolis; Nathan Lay; Sherif Mehralivand; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Joanna H Shih; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2018-04-25       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Does the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 improve accuracy in reporting anterior lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)?

Authors:  Richard Hoffmann; Callum Logan; Michael O'Callaghan; Kirsten Gormly; Ken Chan; Darren Foreman
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2017-11-29       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 4.  Current use of PSMA-PET in prostate cancer management.

Authors:  Tobias Maurer; Matthias Eiber; Markus Schwaiger; Jürgen E Gschwend
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2016-02-23       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 5.  Addressing the need for repeat prostate biopsy: new technology and approaches.

Authors:  Michael L Blute; E Jason Abel; Tracy M Downs; Frederick Kelcz; David F Jarrard
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 14.432

6.  Computer-aided analysis of prostate multiparametric MR images: an unsupervised fusion-based approach.

Authors:  N Betrouni; N Makni; S Lakroum; S Mordon; A Villers; P Puech
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2015-01-22       Impact factor: 2.924

7.  Diagnostic value of semi-quantitative and quantitative analysis of functional parameters in multiparametric MRI of the prostate.

Authors:  Elke Hauth; Daniela Halbritter; Horst Jaeger; Horst Hohmuth; Meinrad Beer
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-07-27       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Validation of the Dominant Sequence Paradigm and Role of Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Imaging in PI-RADS Version 2.

Authors:  Matthew D Greer; Joanna H Shih; Nathan Lay; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo Kayat Bittencourt; Samuel Borofsky; Ismail M Kabakus; Yan Mee Law; Jamie Marko; Haytham Shebel; Francesca V Mertan; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Ronald M Summers; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-07-19       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  3T multiparametric MR imaging, PIRADSv2-based detection of index prostate cancer lesions in the transition zone and the peripheral zone using whole mount histopathology as reference standard.

Authors:  Nazanin Hajarol Asvadi; Sohrab Afshari Mirak; Amirhossein Mohammadian Bajgiran; Pooria Khoshnoodi; Pornphan Wibulpolprasert; Daniel Margolis; Anthony Sisk; Robert E Reiter; Steven S Raman
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2018-11

10.  Zinc-sensitive MRI contrast agent detects differential release of Zn(II) ions from the healthy vs. malignant mouse prostate.

Authors:  M Veronica Clavijo Jordan; Su-Tang Lo; Shiuhwei Chen; Christian Preihs; Sara Chirayil; Shanrong Zhang; Payal Kapur; Wen-Hong Li; Luis M De Leon-Rodriguez; Angelo J M Lubag; Neil M Rofsky; A Dean Sherry
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-08-25       Impact factor: 11.205

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.