Literature DB >> 27856204

Are Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Images Necessary for Prostate Cancer Detection on Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging?

Thaís Caldara Mussi1, Tatiana Martins2, Rodrigo Gobbo Garcia3, Renee Zon Filippi4, Gustavo Caserta Lemos5, Ronaldo Hueb Baroni6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To compare the results of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with and without contrast-enhanced sequences for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. The value of contrast in the MRI protocol for the detection of prostate tumors has been discussed in previous studies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed an institutional review board-approved, retrospective study of patients who had undergone prostate MRI followed by fusion biopsy during a 16-month period. The patients had undergone MRI on a 3-Tesla scanner with a phased-array coil using a routine multiparametric protocol: T2-weighted, diffusion, and dynamic postcontrast enhancement sequences. The examination films were read independently by 2 readers in 2 sessions: first without contrast-enhanced images and second with contrast-enhanced images. The images were graded according to the suspicion of clinically significant prostate cancer (scale, 1-5). The kappa coefficient was used to compare the readings with and without contrast. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy for both readers were calculated using the biopsy findings as a reference standard. The level for statistical significance was set at P < .05.
RESULTS: A total of 118 patients were included, and clinically significant prostate cancer was found in 48 patients (40.7%). The MRI findings on both contrast-enhanced and noncontrast-enhanced images had no statistically significant differences for either reader (P > .05 for all levels of suspicion). The sensitivity ranged from 68.3% to 80.7%, specificity from 57.1% to 77.1%, positive predictive value from 29.9% to 38.8%, negative predictive value from 88.0% to 91.3%, and accuracy from 60.6% to 73.0%.
CONCLUSION: Our results show that contrast-enhanced sequences provide minimal or no increased value for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Dynamic-contrast enhanced; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostate cancer; Prostatic neoplasms

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27856204     DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2016.10.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Genitourin Cancer        ISSN: 1558-7673            Impact factor:   2.872


  7 in total

1.  Comparison of multiparametric and biparametric MRI of the prostate: are gadolinium-based contrast agents needed for routine examinations?

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

2.  A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of biparametric prostate MRI for prostate cancer in men at risk.

Authors:  E J Bass; A Pantovic; M Connor; R Gabe; A R Padhani; A Rockall; H Sokhi; H Tam; M Winkler; H U Ahmed
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2020-11-20       Impact factor: 5.554

3.  Impact of PI-RADS Category 3 lesions on the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for detecting prostate cancer and the prevalence of prostate cancer within each PI-RADS category: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Akshay Wadera; Mostafa Alabousi; Alex Pozdnyakov; Mohammed Kashif Al-Ghita; Ali Jafri; Matthew Df McInnes; Nicola Schieda; Christian B van der Pol; Jean-Paul Salameh; Lucy Samoilov; Kaela Gusenbauer; Abdullah Alabousi
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-10-22       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Is dynamic contrast enhancement still necessary in multiparametric magnetic resonance for diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Zhen Liang; Rui Hu; Yongjiao Yang; Neng An; Xiaoxin Duo; Zheng Liu; Shangheng Shi; Xiaoqiang Liu
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2020-04

5.  Comparison between multiparametric MRI with and without post - contrast sequences for clinically significant prostate cancer detection.

Authors:  Thais Caldara Mussi; Tatiana Martins; George Caldas Dantas; Rodrigo Gobbo Garcia; Renee Zon Filippi; Gustavo Caserta Lemos; Ronaldo Hueb Baroni
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2018 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.541

Review 6.  Imaging as a Personalized Biomarker for Prostate Cancer Risk Stratification.

Authors:  Kyle H Gennaro; Kristin K Porter; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Samuel J Galgano; Soroush Rais-Bahrami
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2018-11-30

Review 7.  Developments in proton MR spectroscopic imaging of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Angeliki Stamatelatou; Tom W J Scheenen; Arend Heerschap
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2022-04-20       Impact factor: 2.533

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.