Kazuhiro Kitajima1,2, Robert P Hartman1, Adam T Froemming1, Clinton E Hagen3, Naoki Takahashi1, Akira Kawashima1. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905. 2. 2 Present address: Department of Radiology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan. 3. 3 Department of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of DWI and dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) in MRI at 3 T with an endorectal coil in identifying local prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty men underwent MRI for suspected local recurrence. The reference standards were histopathologic result, decrease in prostate-specific antigen level after salvage radiation therapy, and follow-up findings. Using a 5-point scoring system, two reviewers independently interpreted T2-weighted images alone (protocol A), a combination of T2-weighted and DW images (protocol B), a combination of T2-weighted and DCE images (protocol C), and a combination of T2-weighted, DW, and DCE images (protocol D). ROC analysis was used to compare the four protocols. RESULTS: Local recurrence was found in 57 of the 80 patients (71.3%). The ROC AUCs for protocols A, B, C, and D were 0.71, 0.72, 0.90, and 0.89 for reader 1 and 0.65, 0.62, 0.84, and 0.83 for reader 2. Protocols C and D had statistically better performance than protocols A and B for both readers (p < 0.001). For local recurrence lesions with a long-axis diameter less than 10 mm visualized with protocol C, protocol B had detection rates of 25.0-29.4% and for lesions measuring 10 mm or greater, 67.9-69.0%. The rates of detection of local recurrence with protocol C or D were 76.5-82.4% for prostate-specific antigen levels less than 0.4 ng/mL, 60-73.3% for 0.4-1.0 ng/mL, and 80-88.0% for greater than 1.0 ng/mL. CONCLUSION: Addition of DCE to T2-weighted imaging in 3-T MRI with an endorectal coil improves the accuracy of detection of local cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. The addition of DWI is of limited incremental value for detection, especially of small lesions.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of DWI and dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) in MRI at 3 T with an endorectal coil in identifying local prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty men underwent MRI for suspected local recurrence. The reference standards were histopathologic result, decrease in prostate-specific antigen level after salvage radiation therapy, and follow-up findings. Using a 5-point scoring system, two reviewers independently interpreted T2-weighted images alone (protocol A), a combination of T2-weighted and DW images (protocol B), a combination of T2-weighted and DCE images (protocol C), and a combination of T2-weighted, DW, and DCE images (protocol D). ROC analysis was used to compare the four protocols. RESULTS: Local recurrence was found in 57 of the 80 patients (71.3%). The ROC AUCs for protocols A, B, C, and D were 0.71, 0.72, 0.90, and 0.89 for reader 1 and 0.65, 0.62, 0.84, and 0.83 for reader 2. Protocols C and D had statistically better performance than protocols A and B for both readers (p < 0.001). For local recurrence lesions with a long-axis diameter less than 10 mm visualized with protocol C, protocol B had detection rates of 25.0-29.4% and for lesions measuring 10 mm or greater, 67.9-69.0%. The rates of detection of local recurrence with protocol C or D were 76.5-82.4% for prostate-specific antigen levels less than 0.4 ng/mL, 60-73.3% for 0.4-1.0 ng/mL, and 80-88.0% for greater than 1.0 ng/mL. CONCLUSION: Addition of DCE to T2-weighted imaging in 3-T MRI with an endorectal coil improves the accuracy of detection of local cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. The addition of DWI is of limited incremental value for detection, especially of small lesions.
Entities:
Keywords:
DWI; dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging; local recurrence; prostate cancer; prostatectomy
Authors: Martin T Freitag; Jan P Radtke; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Matthias C Roethke; Boris A Hadaschik; Martin Gleave; David Bonekamp; Klaus Kopka; Matthias Eder; Thorsten Heusser; Marc Kachelriess; Kathrin Wieczorek; Christos Sachpekidis; Paul Flechsig; Frederik Giesel; Markus Hohenfellner; Uwe Haberkorn; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; A Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-12-17 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Stephen J Riederer; Eric A Borisch; Adam T Froemming; Roger C Grimm; Akira Kawashima; Lance A Mynderse; Joshua D Trzasko Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-01-27 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Anunita Khasgiwala; Ankur M Doshi; Justin M Ream; Samir S Taneja; Herbert Lepor Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2017-01
Authors: Louise Emmett; Ur Metser; Glenn Bauman; Rodney J Hicks; Andrew Weickhardt; Ian D Davis; Shonit Punwani; Greg Pond; Sue Chua; Bao Ho; Edward Johnston; Frederic Pouliot; Andrew M Scott Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-11-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Francesca V Mertan; Matthew D Greer; Sam Borofsky; Ismail M Kabakus; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Top Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-06