Literature DB >> 23754478

Can high-spatial resolution T2-weighted endorectal MRI rule out clinically significant prostate cancer?

Matthias C Roethke1, Michaela Kniess, Sascha Kaufmann, Matthias P Lichy, Heinz-Peter Schlemmer, Arnulf Stenzl, David Schilling.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) can be ruled out by high-spatial resolution T2-weighted endorectal MRI (eMRI) in a cohort of patients with biopsy-proven PCa. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was carried out for consecutive patients who underwent 1.5 Tesla eMRI for local staging before open radical prostatectomy. The cohort was dichotomized into patients with apparent or inapparent tumour on eMRI. The results were compared with final histopathology, and an analysis for presence of clinically significance PCa was performed.
RESULTS: A total of 385 patients were included in the study; in 85 patients (22 %), no apparent lesion suspicious for PCa was detected on eMRI, still final pathology revealed clinically significant PCa in 61 of these patients (72 %). In contrast, 256 (85 %) of the 300 patients with apparent tumour in eMRI harboured clinically significant PCa. eMRI could not differentiate clinically significant from insignificant PCa in neither of the groups (p > 0.6).
CONCLUSIONS: Presence of clinically significant cancer cannot be excluded by high-resolution 1.5 Tesla T2-weighted eMRI. The results of the study suggest that the role of T2-weighted eMRI for selecting patients suitable for AS is limited.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23754478     DOI: 10.1007/s00345-013-1106-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Urol        ISSN: 0724-4983            Impact factor:   4.226


  19 in total

Review 1.  Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging.

Authors:  Caroline M A Hoeks; Jelle O Barentsz; Thomas Hambrock; Derya Yakar; Diederik M Somford; Stijn W T P J Heijmink; Tom W J Scheenen; Pieter C Vos; Henkjan Huisman; Inge M van Oort; J Alfred Witjes; Arend Heerschap; Jurgen J Fütterer
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Comparison of phased-array 3.0-T and endorectal 1.5-T magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of local staging accuracy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Byung Kwan Park; Bohyun Kim; Chan Kyo Kim; Hyun Moo Lee; Ghee Young Kwon
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  2007 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.826

3.  Accuracy of preoperative endorectal MRI in predicting extracapsular extension and influence on neurovascular bundle sparing in radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Matthias C Roethke; Matthias P Lichy; Michaela Kniess; Matthias K Werner; Claus D Claussen; Arnulf Stenzl; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; David Schilling
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2012-01-17       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Endorectal T2-weighted MRI does not differentiate between favorable and adverse pathologic features in men with prostate cancer who would qualify for active surveillance.

Authors:  Thomas J Guzzo; Matthew J Resnick; Daniel J Canter; Trinity J Bivalacqua; Mark A Rosen; Meredith R Bergey; Laurie Magerfleisch; John E Tomazewski; Alan J Wein; S Bruce Malkowicz
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2012 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.498

5.  Incremental value of magnetic resonance imaging in the advanced management of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Liang Wang
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2009-12-31

6.  Magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of clinically low risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Hebert Alberto Vargas; Oguz Akin; Asim Afaq; Debra Goldman; Junting Zheng; Chaya S Moskowitz; Amita Shukla-Dave; James Eastham; Peter Scardino; Hedvig Hricak
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2012-09-25       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 7.  Insignificant prostate cancer and active surveillance: from definition to clinical implications.

Authors:  Patrick J Bastian; Ballentine H Carter; Anders Bjartell; Michael Seitz; Peter Stanislaus; Francesco Montorsi; Christian G Stief; Fritz Schröder
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2009-03-06       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  Prostate cancer: is inapparent tumor at endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging a favorable prognostic finding in patients who select active surveillance?

Authors:  Alvin R Cabrera; Fergus V Coakley; Antonio C Westphalen; Ying Lu; Shoujun Zhao; Katsuto Shinohara; Peter R Carroll; John Kurhanewicz
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012.

Authors:  Jelle O Barentsz; Jonathan Richenberg; Richard Clements; Peter Choyke; Sadhna Verma; Geert Villeirs; Olivier Rouviere; Vibeke Logager; Jurgen J Fütterer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-02-10       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  International multicentre study examining selection criteria for active surveillance in men undergoing radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  L-M Wong; D E Neal; R B Johnston; N Shah; N Sharma; A Y Warren; C M Hovens; S Larry Goldenberg; M E Gleave; A J Costello; N M Corcoran
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2012-10-04       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  2 in total

1.  Multivariate modelling of prostate cancer combining magnetic resonance derived T2, diffusion, dynamic contrast-enhanced and spectroscopic parameters.

Authors:  S F Riches; G S Payne; V A Morgan; D Dearnaley; S Morgan; M Partridge; N Livni; C Ogden; N M deSouza
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-03-07       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Multiparametric [11C]Acetate positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment and staging of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Stephan H Polanec; Piotr Andrzejewski; Pascal A T Baltzer; Thomas H Helbich; Alexander Stiglbauer; Dietmar Georg; Georgios Karanikas; Martin Susani; Wolfgang Wadsak; Markus Margreiter; Markus Mitterhauser; Peter Brader; Katja Pinker
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-07-18       Impact factor: 3.240

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.