PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the utility of a 3 T pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in detecting a local recurrence in post-prostatectomy prostate cancer patients prior to receiving adjuvant or salvage intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). METHODS: Ninety prostate cancer patients status post-prostatectomy with rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) had a 3 T pelvic MRI prior to IMRT. The following variables were analyzed for predicting positive findings on MRI: initial presenting and initial post-op PSA, PSA at the time of imaging, PSA velocity, surgical margins, Gleason score, pathological stage, pre-RT digital rectal examination, and type of surgical prostatectomy. RESULTS: The only significant variable predictive of a positive MRI was positive margins. Specifically, 15 of 46 (33 %) patients with positive margins had a positive MRI, while 5 of 44 (11 %) patients with negative margins had a positive MRI. In the MRI positive group, the location of the positive findings on MRI corresponded with the pathology report in 9 of 12 (75 %) cases. CONCLUSION: Post-prostatectomy patients with pathologic positive margins are three times more likely to have positive findings on a 3 T MRI.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the utility of a 3 T pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in detecting a local recurrence in post-prostatectomy prostate cancerpatients prior to receiving adjuvant or salvage intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). METHODS: Ninety prostate cancerpatients status post-prostatectomy with rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) had a 3 T pelvic MRI prior to IMRT. The following variables were analyzed for predicting positive findings on MRI: initial presenting and initial post-op PSA, PSA at the time of imaging, PSA velocity, surgical margins, Gleason score, pathological stage, pre-RT digital rectal examination, and type of surgical prostatectomy. RESULTS: The only significant variable predictive of a positive MRI was positive margins. Specifically, 15 of 46 (33 %) patients with positive margins had a positive MRI, while 5 of 44 (11 %) patients with negative margins had a positive MRI. In the MRI positive group, the location of the positive findings on MRI corresponded with the pathology report in 9 of 12 (75 %) cases. CONCLUSION: Post-prostatectomy patients with pathologic positive margins are three times more likely to have positive findings on a 3 T MRI.
Authors: Pasquale Martino; Vincenzo Scattoni; Andrea B Galosi; Paolo Consonni; Carlo Trombetta; Silvano Palazzo; Carmen Maccagnano; Giovanni Liguori; Massimo Valentino; Michele Battaglia; Libero Barozzi Journal: World J Urol Date: 2011-05-08 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Oguz Akin; David H Gultekin; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Junting Zheng; Chaya Moskowitz; Xin Pei; Dahlia Sperling; Lawrence H Schwartz; Hedvig Hricak; Michael J Zelefsky Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-05-01 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Hedvig Hricak; Heiko Schöder; Darko Pucar; Eric Lis; Steven C Eberhardt; Chinyere N Onyebuchi; Howard I Scher Journal: Semin Oncol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 4.929
Authors: Jeff M Michalski; Colleen Lawton; Issam El Naqa; Mark Ritter; Elizabeth O'Meara; Michael J Seider; W Robert Lee; Seth A Rosenthal; Thomas Pisansky; Charles Catton; Richard K Valicenti; Anthony L Zietman; Walter R Bosch; Howard Sandler; Mark K Buyyounouski; Cynthia Ménard Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-04-23 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Thomas Wiegel; Dirk Bottke; Ursula Steiner; Alessandra Siegmann; Reinhard Golz; Stephan Störkel; Norman Willich; Axel Semjonow; Rainer Souchon; Michael Stöckle; Christian Rübe; Lothar Weissbach; Peter Althaus; Udo Rebmann; Tilman Kälble; Horst Jürgen Feldmann; Manfred Wirth; Axel Hinke; Wolfgang Hinkelbein; Kurt Miller Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Maaike R Moman; Cornelis A T van den Berg; Arto E Boeken Kruger; Jan J Battermann; Marinus A Moerland; Uulke A van der Heide; Marco van Vulpen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-10-03 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: David A McKenna; Fergus V Coakley; Antonio C Westphalen; Shoujun Zhao; Ying Lu; Emily M Webb; Barby Pickett; Mack Roach; John Kurhanewicz Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-02-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Berrend G Muller; Aradhana Kaushal; Sandeep Sankineni; Elena Lita; Anthony N Hoang; Arvin K George; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Jochen Kruecker; Pingkun Yan; Sheng Xu; Jean J de la Rosette; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2015-08-08 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Felipe Couñago; Gemma Sancho; Violeta Catalá; Diana Hernández; Manuel Recio; Sara Montemuiño; Jhonathan Alejandro Hernández; Antonio Maldonado; Elia Del Cerro Journal: World J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-08-10
Authors: D Hernandez; D Salas; D Giménez; P Buitrago; S Esquena; J Palou; P de la Torre; J Pernas; I Gich; G Gómez de Segura; J Craven-Bartle; G Sancho Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-12-24 Impact factor: 3.481