Literature DB >> 23564713

Multiparametric MR imaging for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: a validation cohort study with transperineal template prostate mapping as the reference standard.

Nimalan Arumainayagam1, Hashim U Ahmed, Caroline M Moore, Alex Freeman, Clare Allen, S Aslam Sohaib, Alex Kirkham, Jan van der Meulen, Mark Emberton.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of multiparametric (MP) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for prostate cancer detection by using transperineal template prostate mapping (TTPM) biopsies as the reference standard and to determine the potential ability of MP MR imaging to identify clinically significant prostate cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board exemption was granted by the local research ethics committee for this retrospective study. Included were 64 men (mean age, 62 years [range, 40-76]; mean prostate-specific antigen, 8.2 ng/mL [8.2 μg/L] [range, 2.1-43 ng/mL]), 51 with biopsy-proved cancer and 13 suspected of having clinically significant cancer that was biopsy negative or without prior biopsy. MP MR imaging included T2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted imaging (1.5 T, pelvic phased-array coil). Three radiologists independently reviewed images and were blinded to results of biopsy. Two-by-two tables were derived by using sectors of analysis of four quadrants, two lobes, and one whole prostate. Primary target definition for clinically significant disease necessary to be present within a sector of analysis on TTPM for that sector to be deemed positive was set at Gleason score of 3+4 or more and/or cancer core length involvement of 4 mm or more. Sensitivity, negative predictive value, and negative likelihood ratio were calculated to determine ability of MP MR imaging to rule out cancer. Specificity, positive predictive value, positive likelihood ratio, accuracy (overall fraction correct), and area under receiver operating characteristic curves were also calculated.
RESULTS: Twenty-eight percent (71 of 256) of sectors had clinically significant cancer by primary endpoint definition. For primary endpoint definition (≥ 4 mm and/or Gleason score ≥ 3+4), sensitivity, negative predictive value, and negative likelihood ratios were 58%-73%, 84%-89%, and 0.3-0.5, respectively. Specificity, positive predictive value, and positive likelihood ratios were 71%-84%, 49%-63%, and 2.-3.44, respectively. Area under the curve values were 0.73-0.84.
CONCLUSION: Results of this study indicate that MP MR imaging has a high negative predictive value to rule out clinically significant prostate cancer and may potentially have clinical use in diagnostic pathways of men at risk.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23564713     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13120641

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


  55 in total

1.  Assessment of Prostate Cancer Aggressiveness by Use of the Combination of Quantitative DWI and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI.

Authors:  Andreas M Hötker; Yousef Mazaheri; Ömer Aras; Junting Zheng; Chaya S Moskowitz; Tatsuo Gondo; Kazuhiro Matsumoto; Hedvig Hricak; Oguz Akin
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2016-02-22       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 2.  Targeted prostate biopsy and MR-guided therapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  David A Woodrum; Akira Kawashima; Krzysztof R Gorny; Lance A Mynderse
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2016-05

3.  Poor standard mp-MRI and routine biopsy fail to precisely predict intraprostatic tumor localization.

Authors:  Andrea Billing; Alexander Buchner; Christian Stief; Alexander Roosen
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Multiparametric MRI for detection of radiorecurrent prostate cancer: added value of apparent diffusion coefficient maps and dynamic contrast-enhanced images.

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

Review 5.  [Prostate gland - what would urologists like to know from radiologists?]

Authors:  U B Liehr; D Baumunk; S Blaschke; F Fischbach; B Friebe; F König; A Lemke; P Mittelstädt; M Pech; M Porsch; J Ricke; D Schindele; S Siedentopf; J J Wendler; M Schostak
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 6.  [Focal therapy for prostate cancer in Germany - 2014 status].

Authors:  A Roosen; R Ganzer; B Hadaschik; J Köllermann; A Blana; T Henkel; A-B Liehr; D Baumunk; S Machtens; G Salomon; L Sentker; U Witsch; K U Köhrmann; M Schostak
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 7.  [Prostate biopsy. Update for indication, procedure, and future developments].

Authors:  S Machtens; A Roosen; C G Stief; M C Truß
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 0.639

8.  Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Short Dual-Pulse Sequence versus Standard Multiparametric MR Imaging-A Multireader Study.

Authors:  Borna K Barth; Pieter J L De Visschere; Alexander Cornelius; Carlos Nicolau; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Daniel Eberli; Olivio F Donati
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-03-27       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Prostate Cancer: assessing the effects of androgen-deprivation therapy using quantitative diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI.

Authors:  Andreas M Hötker; Yousef Mazaheri; Junting Zheng; Chaya S Moskowitz; Joshua Berkowitz; Joshua E Lantos; Xin Pei; Michael J Zelefsky; Hedvig Hricak; Oguz Akin
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-03-29       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 10.  MRI-Guided Prostate Biopsy of Native and Recurrent Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  David A Woodrum; Krzysztof R Gorny; Bernadette Greenwood; Lance A Mynderse
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 1.513

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.