OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to systematically review and meta-analyze dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) for the detection of prostate cancer in comparison with standard evaluation with T2-weighted imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PubMed electronic database search for the terms "dynamic contrast-enhanced," "prostate," and "MRI" was completed for articles up to September 17, 2013. All included studies had histopathologic correlation. Two by two contingency data were constructed for each study. A binormal bayesian ROC model was used to estimate and compare sensitivity, specificity, and AUC among eligible modalities. RESULTS: Both DCE-MRI (0.82-0.86) and diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) (0.84-0.88) yielded significantly better AUC than T2-weighted imaging (0.68-0.77). Moreover, partial AUC for the combination of DCE-MRI, DWI, and T2-weighted imaging was improved significantly (0.111; 0.103-0.119) when compared with DCE-MRI alone (0.079; 0.072-0.085) and T2-weighted imaging alone (0.079; 0.074-0.084) but not DWI alone (0.099; 0.091-0.108). Sensitivity and specificity were similar among the four modalities. CONCLUSION: DCE-MRI improves AUC of tumor detection overall compared with T2-weighted imaging alone. Methods for DCE-MRI analysis require standardization, but visual analysis performs similar to semiquantitative methods. A two-parameter approach using DCE-MRI and T2-weighted imaging or DWI and T2-weighted imaging may be sufficient, and the latter may be more favorable for most routine prostate cancer imaging.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to systematically review and meta-analyze dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) for the detection of prostate cancer in comparison with standard evaluation with T2-weighted imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PubMed electronic database search for the terms "dynamic contrast-enhanced," "prostate," and "MRI" was completed for articles up to September 17, 2013. All included studies had histopathologic correlation. Two by two contingency data were constructed for each study. A binormal bayesian ROC model was used to estimate and compare sensitivity, specificity, and AUC among eligible modalities. RESULTS: Both DCE-MRI (0.82-0.86) and diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) (0.84-0.88) yielded significantly better AUC than T2-weighted imaging (0.68-0.77). Moreover, partial AUC for the combination of DCE-MRI, DWI, and T2-weighted imaging was improved significantly (0.111; 0.103-0.119) when compared with DCE-MRI alone (0.079; 0.072-0.085) and T2-weighted imaging alone (0.079; 0.074-0.084) but not DWI alone (0.099; 0.091-0.108). Sensitivity and specificity were similar among the four modalities. CONCLUSION:DCE-MRI improves AUC of tumor detection overall compared with T2-weighted imaging alone. Methods for DCE-MRI analysis require standardization, but visual analysis performs similar to semiquantitative methods. A two-parameter approach using DCE-MRI and T2-weighted imaging or DWI and T2-weighted imaging may be sufficient, and the latter may be more favorable for most routine prostate cancer imaging.
Authors: G J Jager; E T Ruijter; C A van de Kaa; J J de la Rosette; G O Oosterhof; J R Thornbury; S H Ruijs; J O Barentsz Journal: Radiology Date: 1997-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: David Bonekamp; Michael A Jacobs; Riham El-Khouli; Dan Stoianovici; Katarzyna J Macura Journal: Radiographics Date: 2011 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Sophie F Riches; Geoffrey S Payne; Veronica A Morgan; Samir Sandhu; Cyril Fisher; Michael Germuska; David J Collins; Alan Thompson; Nandita M deSouza Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Andreas Erbersdobler; Hendrik Isbarn; Kira Dix; Isabel Steiner; Thorsten Schlomm; Martina Mirlacher; Guido Sauter; Alexander Haese Journal: World J Urol Date: 2009-08-28 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Daniel Junker; Fabian Steinkohl; Veronika Fritz; Jasmin Bektic; Theodoros Tokas; Friedrich Aigner; Thomas R W Herrmann; Michael Rieger; Udo Nagele Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-08-04 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Vera C Keil; Bogdan Pintea; Gerrit H Gielen; Susanne Greschus; Rolf Fimmers; Jürgen Gieseke; Matthias Simon; Hans H Schild; Dariusch R Hadizadeh Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2017-04-19 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Justin M Ream; Ankur M Doshi; Diane Dunst; Nainesh Parikh; Max X Kong; James S Babb; Samir S Taneja; Andrew B Rosenkrantz Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-09-20 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Elmira Hassanzadeh; Daniel I Glazer; Ruth M Dunne; Fiona M Fennessy; Mukesh G Harisinghani; Clare M Tempany Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2017-01
Authors: Constantinos Zamboglou; Gesche Wieser; Steffen Hennies; Irene Rempel; Simon Kirste; Martin Soschynski; Hans Christian Rischke; Tobias Fechter; Cordula A Jilg; Mathias Langer; Philipp T Meyer; Michael Bock; Anca-Ligia Grosu Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 9.236