PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for accurate localization of intraprostatic tumor nodules, with whole-mount histopathology as the gold standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Seventy-five patients with biopsy-proven, intermediate, and high-risk prostate cancer underwent preoperative T2-weighted (T2w), dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) and diffusion-weighted (DW) MRI at 1.5T. Localization of suspicious lesions was recorded for each of 24 standardized regions of interest on the different MR images and correlated with the pathologic findings. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to estimate the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive, and negative predictive value for every MRI modality, as well as to evaluate the influence of Gleason score and pT-stage. Tumor volume measurements on histopathological specimens were correlated with those on the different MR modalities (Pearson correlation). RESULTS: DW MRI had the highest sensitivity for tumor localization (31.1% vs. 27.4% vs. 44.5% for T2w, DCE, and DW MRI, respectively; P < 0.005), with more aggressive or more advanced tumors being more easily detected with this imaging modality. Significantly higher sensitivity values were obtained for the combination of T2w, DCE, and DW MRI (58.8%) as compared to each modality alone or any combination of two modalities (P < 0.0001). Tumor volume can most accurately be assessed by means of DW MRI (r = 0.75; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Combining T2w, DCE, and DW imaging significantly improves prostate cancer localization.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for accurate localization of intraprostatic tumor nodules, with whole-mount histopathology as the gold standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-five patients with biopsy-proven, intermediate, and high-risk prostate cancer underwent preoperative T2-weighted (T2w), dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) and diffusion-weighted (DW) MRI at 1.5T. Localization of suspicious lesions was recorded for each of 24 standardized regions of interest on the different MR images and correlated with the pathologic findings. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to estimate the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive, and negative predictive value for every MRI modality, as well as to evaluate the influence of Gleason score and pT-stage. Tumor volume measurements on histopathological specimens were correlated with those on the different MR modalities (Pearson correlation). RESULTS: DW MRI had the highest sensitivity for tumor localization (31.1% vs. 27.4% vs. 44.5% for T2w, DCE, and DW MRI, respectively; P < 0.005), with more aggressive or more advanced tumors being more easily detected with this imaging modality. Significantly higher sensitivity values were obtained for the combination of T2w, DCE, and DW MRI (58.8%) as compared to each modality alone or any combination of two modalities (P < 0.0001). Tumor volume can most accurately be assessed by means of DW MRI (r = 0.75; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Combining T2w, DCE, and DW imaging significantly improves prostate cancer localization.
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
Authors: Arjun Sivaraman; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; Eric Barret; Petr Macek; Pierre Validire; Marc Galiano; Francois Rozet; Xavier Cathelineau Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-12-12 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: G P Liney; L Holloway; T M Al Harthi; M Sidhom; D Moses; E Juresic; R Rai; D J Manton Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Deukwoo Kwon; Isildinha M Reis; Adrian L Breto; Yohann Tschudi; Nicole Gautney; Olmo Zavala-Romero; Christopher Lopez; John C Ford; Sanoj Punnen; Alan Pollack; Radka Stoyanova Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-09-06
Authors: Ryan L Brunsing; Natalie M Schenker-Ahmed; Nathan S White; J Kellogg Parsons; Christopher Kane; Joshua Kuperman; Hauke Bartsch; Andrew Karim Kader; Rebecca Rakow-Penner; Tyler M Seibert; Daniel Margolis; Steven S Raman; Carrie R McDonald; Nikdokht Farid; Santosh Kesari; Donna Hansel; Ahmed Shabaik; Anders M Dale; David S Karow Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Radka Stoyanova; Felix Chinea; Deukwoo Kwon; Isildinha M Reis; Yohann Tschudi; Nestor A Parra; Adrian L Breto; Kyle R Padgett; Alan Dal Pra; Matthew C Abramowitz; Oleksandr N Kryvenko; Sanoj Punnen; Alan Pollack Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-06-13 Impact factor: 7.038