OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accuracy of transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) biopsy, diffusion-weighted (DW) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), (11)C-choline (CHOL) positron emission tomography (PET), and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET in predicting the prostatectomy Gleason risk (GR). METHODS: The study included 21 patients who underwent TRUS biopsy and multi-technique imaging before radical prostatectomy. Values from five different tests (TRUS biopsy, DW MRI, CHOL PET, FDG PET, and combined DW MRI/CHOL PET) were correlated with the prostatectomy GR using Spearman's ρ. Tests that were found to have significant correlations were used to classify patients into GR groups. RESULTS: The following tests had significant correlations with prostatectomy GR: TRUS biopsy (ρ = 0.617, P = 0.003), DW MRI (ρ = -0.601, P = 0.004), and combined DW MRI/CHOL PET (ρ = -0.623, P = 0.003). CHOL PET alone and FDG PET only had weak correlations. The correct GR classification rates were 67% with TRUS biopsy, 67% with DW MRI, and 76% with combined DW MRI/CHOL PET. CONCLUSIONS: DW MRI and combined DW MRI/CHOL PET have significant correlations and high rates of correct classification of the prostatectomy GR, the strength and accuracy of which are comparable with TRUS biopsy. KEY POINTS: • Accurate determination of the Gleason score is essential for prostate cancer management. • DW MRI ± CHOL PET correlated significantly with prostatectomy Gleason score. • These correlations are similar to that between TRUS biopsy and prostatectomy.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accuracy of transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) biopsy, diffusion-weighted (DW) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), (11)C-choline (CHOL) positron emission tomography (PET), and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET in predicting the prostatectomy Gleason risk (GR). METHODS: The study included 21 patients who underwent TRUS biopsy and multi-technique imaging before radical prostatectomy. Values from five different tests (TRUS biopsy, DW MRI, CHOL PET, FDG PET, and combined DW MRI/CHOL PET) were correlated with the prostatectomy GR using Spearman's ρ. Tests that were found to have significant correlations were used to classify patients into GR groups. RESULTS: The following tests had significant correlations with prostatectomy GR: TRUS biopsy (ρ = 0.617, P = 0.003), DW MRI (ρ = -0.601, P = 0.004), and combined DW MRI/CHOL PET (ρ = -0.623, P = 0.003). CHOL PET alone and FDG PET only had weak correlations. The correct GR classification rates were 67% with TRUS biopsy, 67% with DW MRI, and 76% with combined DW MRI/CHOL PET. CONCLUSIONS: DW MRI and combined DW MRI/CHOL PET have significant correlations and high rates of correct classification of the prostatectomy GR, the strength and accuracy of which are comparable with TRUS biopsy. KEY POINTS: • Accurate determination of the Gleason score is essential for prostate cancer management. • DW MRI ± CHOL PET correlated significantly with prostatectomy Gleason score. • These correlations are similar to that between TRUS biopsy and prostatectomy.
Authors: Peter Gibbs; Gary P Liney; Martin D Pickles; Bashar Zelhof; Greta Rodrigues; Lindsay W Turnbull Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: James Mohler; Robert R Bahnson; Barry Boston; J Erik Busby; Anthony D'Amico; James A Eastham; Charles A Enke; Daniel George; Eric Mark Horwitz; Robert P Huben; Philip Kantoff; Mark Kawachi; Michael Kuettel; Paul H Lange; Gary Macvicar; Elizabeth R Plimack; Julio M Pow-Sang; Mack Roach; Eric Rohren; Bruce J Roth; Dennis C Shrieve; Matthew R Smith; Sandy Srinivas; Przemyslaw Twardowski; Patrick C Walsh Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Joe H Chang; Daryl Lim Joon; Sze Ting Lee; Sylvia J Gong; Andrew M Scott; Ian D Davis; David Clouston; Damien Bolton; Christopher S Hamilton; Vincent Khoo Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2011-05-18 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Aytekin Oto; Cheng Yang; Arda Kayhan; Maria Tretiakova; Tatjana Antic; Christine Schmid-Tannwald; Scott Eggener; Gregory S Karczmar; Walter M Stadler Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.959
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
Authors: Usman Bashir; Andrew Mallia; James Stirling; John Joemon; Jane MacKewn; Geoff Charles-Edwards; Vicky Goh; Gary J Cook Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2015-07-21
Authors: Natalia Arteaga-Marrero; Cecilie Brekke Rygh; Jose F Mainou-Gomez; Tom C H Adamsen; Nataliya Lutay; Rolf K Reed; Dag R Olsen Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2015-12-18 Impact factor: 5.531