Literature DB >> 25423145

How accurate is multiparametric MR imaging in evaluation of prostate cancer volume?

Flavie Bratan1, Christelle Melodelima, Rémi Souchon, Au Hoang Dinh, Florence Mège-Lechevallier, Sébastien Crouzet, Marc Colombel, Albert Gelet, Olivier Rouvière.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the factors influencing multiparametric (MP) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging accuracy in estimating prostate cancer histologic volume (Vh).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective database of 202 patients who underwent MP MR imaging before radical prostatectomy was retrospectively used. Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained. Two independent radiologists delineated areas suspicious for cancer on images (T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, dynamic contrast material-enhanced [DCE] pulse sequences) and scored their degree of suspicion of malignancy by using a five-level Likert score. One pathologist delineated cancers on whole-mount prostatectomy sections and calculated their volume by using digitized planimetry. Volumes of MR true-positive lesions were measured on T2-weighted images (VT2), on ADC maps (VADC), and on DCE images [VDCE]). VT2, VADC, VDCE and the greatest volume determined on images from any of the individual MR pulse sequences (Vmax) were compared with Vh (Bland-Altman analysis). Factors influencing MP MR imaging accuracy, or A, calculated as A = Vmax/Vh, were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models.
RESULTS: For both readers, Vh was significantly underestimated with VT2 (P < .0001, both), VADC (P < .0001, both), and VDCE (P = .02 and P = .003, readers 1 and 2, respectively), but not with Vmax (P = .13 and P = .21, readers 1 and 2, respectively). Mean, 25th percentile, and 75th percentile, respectively, for Vmax accuracy were 0.92, 0.54, and 1.85 for reader 1 and 0.95, 0.57, and 1.77 for reader 2. At generalized linear mixed (multivariate) analysis, tumor Likert score (P < .0001), Gleason score (P = .009), and Vh (P < .0001) significantly influenced Vmax accuracy (both readers). This accuracy was good in tumors with a Gleason score of 7 or higher or a Likert score of 5, with a tendency toward underestimation of Vh; accuracy was poor in small (<0.5 cc) or low-grade (Gleason score ≤6) tumors, with a tendency toward overestimation of Vh.
CONCLUSION: Vh can be estimated by using Vmax in aggressive tumors or in tumors with high Likert scores. © RSNA, 2014.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25423145     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14140524

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


  27 in total

Review 1.  Advances in Imaging in Prostate and Bladder Cancer.

Authors:  Abhishek Srivastava; Laura M Douglass; Victoria Chernyak; Kara L Watts
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  Diffusion-weighted imaging of the prostate: should we use quantitative metrics to better characterize focal lesions originating in the peripheral zone?

Authors:  Thibaut Pierre; Francois Cornud; Loïc Colléter; Frédéric Beuvon; Frantz Foissac; Nicolas B Delongchamps; Paul Legmann
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-11-22       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  3D Registration of mpMRI for Assessment of Prostate Cancer Focal Therapy.

Authors:  Clément Orczyk; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Artem Mikheev; Arnauld Villers; Myriam Bernaudin; Samir S Taneja; Samuel Valable; Henry Rusinek
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2017-11-06       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 4.  Current role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Romaric Loffroy; Olivier Chevallier; Morgan Moulin; Sylvain Favelier; Pierre-Yves Genson; Pierre Pottecher; Gilles Crehange; Alexandre Cochet; Luc Cormier
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2015-10

Review 5.  The Contemporary Role of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Ariel A Schulman; Christina Sze; Efrat Tsivian; Rajan T Gupta; Judd W Moul; Thomas J Polascik
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 3.092

6.  The performance of PI-RADSv2 and quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient for predicting confirmatory prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Stephanie Nougaret; Nicola Robertson; Jennifer Golia Pernicka; Nicolas Molinari; Andreas M Hötker; Behfar Ehdaie; Evis Sala; Hedvig Hricak; Hebert Alberto Vargas
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2017-07

7.  What Are We Missing? False-Negative Cancers at Multiparametric MR Imaging of the Prostate.

Authors:  Samuel Borofsky; Arvin K George; Sonia Gaur; Marcelino Bernardo; Matthew D Greer; Francesca V Mertan; Myles Taffel; Vanesa Moreno; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-10-20       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  A prospective study evaluating indirect MRI-signs for the prediction of extraprostatic disease in patients with prostate cancer: tumor volume, tumor contact length and tumor apparent diffusion coefficient.

Authors:  Erik Rud; Lien Diep; Eduard Baco
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-01-18       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  Investigating the role of DCE-MRI, over T2 and DWI, in accurate PI-RADS v2 assessment of clinically significant peripheral zone prostate lesions as defined at radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Mehdi Taghipour; Alireza Ziaei; Francesco Alessandrino; Elmira Hassanzadeh; Mukesh Harisinghani; Mark Vangel; Clare M Tempany; Fiona M Fennessy
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2019-04

10.  Prostate cancer measurements on serial MRI during active surveillance: it's time to be PRECISE.

Authors:  Francesco Giganti; Vasilis Stavrinides; Armando Stabile; Elizabeth Osinibi; Clement Orczyk; Jan Philipp Radtke; Alex Freeman; Aiman Haider; Shonit Punwani; Clare Allen; Mark Emberton; Alex Kirkham; Caroline M Moore
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-09-21       Impact factor: 3.039

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.