Literature DB >> 28346073

Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Short Dual-Pulse Sequence versus Standard Multiparametric MR Imaging-A Multireader Study.

Borna K Barth1, Pieter J L De Visschere1, Alexander Cornelius1, Carlos Nicolau1, Hebert Alberto Vargas1, Daniel Eberli1, Olivio F Donati1.   

Abstract

Purpose To compare the diagnostic performance of a short dual-pulse sequence magnetic resonance (MR) imaging protocol versus a standard six-pulse sequence multiparametric MR imaging protocol for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Materials and Methods This HIPAA-compliant study was approved by the regional ethics committee. Between July 2013 and March 2015, 63 patients from a prospectively accrued study population who underwent MR imaging of the prostate including transverse T1-weighted; transverse, coronal, and sagittal T2-weighted; diffusion-weighted; and dynamic contrast material-enhanced MR imaging with a 3-T imager at a single institution were included in this retrospective study. The short MR imaging protocol image set consisted of transverse T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted images only. The standard MR imaging protocol image set contained images from all six pulse sequences. Three expert readers from different institutions assessed the likelihood of prostate cancer on a five-point scale. Diagnostic performance on a quadrant basis was assessed by using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves, and differences were evaluated by using 83.8% confidence intervals. Intra- and interreader agreement was assessed by using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Transperineal template saturation biopsy served as the standard of reference. Results At histopathologic evaluation, 84 of 252 (33%) quadrants were positive for cancer in 38 of 63 (60%) men. There was no significant difference in detection of tumors larger than or equal to 0.5 mL for any of the readers of the short MR imaging protocol, with areas under the curve in the range of 0.74-0.81 (83.8% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64, 0.89), and for readers of the standard MR imaging protocol, areas under the curve were 0.71-0.77 (83.8% CI: 0.62, 0.86). Ranges for sensitivity were 0.76-0.95 (95% CI: 0.53, 0.99) and 0.76-0.86 (95% CI: 0.53, 0.97) and those for specificity were 0.84-0.90 (95% CI: 0.79, 0.94) and 0.82-0.90 (95% CI: 0.77, 0.94) for the short and standard MR protocols, respectively. Ranges for interreader agreement were 0.48-0.60 (83.8% CI: 0.41, 0.66) and 0.49-0.63 (83.8% CI: 0.42, 0.68) for the short and standard MR imaging protocols. Conclusion For the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, no difference was found in the diagnostic performance of the short MR imaging protocol consisting of only transverse T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted imaging pulse sequences compared with that of a standard multiparametric MR imaging protocol. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28346073      PMCID: PMC5584651          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017162020

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


  41 in total

1.  Length of capsular contact for diagnosing extraprostatic extension on prostate MRI: Assessment at an optimal threshold.

Authors:  Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Alampady K Shanbhogue; Annie Wang; Max Xiangtian Kong; James S Babb; Samir S Taneja
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2015-09-23       Impact factor: 4.813

2.  T2- and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 3T for the detection of prostate cancer with and without endorectal coil: An intraindividual comparison of image quality and diagnostic performance.

Authors:  Alexander D J Baur; Tareef Daqqaq; Moritz Wagner; Andreas Maxeiner; Alexander Huppertz; Diane Renz; Bernd Hamm; Thomas Fischer; Tahir Durmus
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2016-03-19       Impact factor: 3.528

3.  Diffusion-Weighted Imaging of the Prostate: Image Quality and Geometric Distortion of Readout-Segmented Versus Selective-Excitation Accelerated Acquisitions.

Authors:  Borna K Barth; Alexander Cornelius; Daniel Nanz; Daniel Eberli; Olivio F Donati
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 6.016

4.  Tumor size, vascular density and proliferation as prognostic markers in GS 6 and GS 7 prostate tumors in patients with long follow-up and non-curative treatment.

Authors:  Andreas Josefsson; Pernilla Wikström; Torvald Granfors; Lars Egevad; Lars Karlberg; Pär Stattin; Anders Bergh
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 5.  Limited evidence for the use of imaging to detect prostate cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  L Blomqvist; S Carlsson; P Gjertsson; E Heintz; M Hultcrantz; I Mejare; O Andrén
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2014-07-05       Impact factor: 3.528

Review 6.  Multiparametric MRI in prostate cancer management.

Authors:  Linda M Johnson; Baris Turkbey; William D Figg; Peter L Choyke
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-05-20       Impact factor: 66.675

7.  Whole-lesion apparent diffusion coefficient metrics as a marker of percentage Gleason 4 component within Gleason 7 prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Michael J Triolo; Jonathan Melamed; Henry Rusinek; Samir S Taneja; Fang-Ming Deng
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2014-02-25       Impact factor: 4.813

8.  Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: applications to assessment of adaptive behavior.

Authors:  D V Cicchetti; S A Sparrow
Journal:  Am J Ment Defic       Date:  1981-09

9.  Prostate cancer: Comparison of 3D T2-weighted with conventional 2D T2-weighted imaging for image quality and tumor detection.

Authors:  Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Jeffry Neil; Xiangtian Kong; Jonathan Melamed; James S Babb; Samir S Taneja; Bachir Taouli
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012.

Authors:  Jelle O Barentsz; Jonathan Richenberg; Richard Clements; Peter Choyke; Sadhna Verma; Geert Villeirs; Olivier Rouviere; Vibeke Logager; Jurgen J Fütterer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-02-10       Impact factor: 5.315

View more
  13 in total

1.  Radiomic Machine Learning and External Validation Based on 3.0 T mpMRI for Prediction of Intraductal Carcinoma of Prostate With Different Proportion.

Authors:  Ling Yang; Zhengyan Li; Xu Liang; Jingxu Xu; Yusen Cai; Chencui Huang; Mengni Zhang; Jin Yao; Bin Song
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-06-28       Impact factor: 5.738

2.  Diagnostic Accuracy of a MR Protocol Acquired with and without Endorectal Coil for Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Multicenter Study.

Authors:  Borna K Barth; Niels J Rupp; Alexander Cornelius; Daniel Nanz; Rainer Grobholz; Martin Schmidtpeter; Peter J Wild; Daniel Eberli; Olivio F Donati
Journal:  Curr Urol       Date:  2019-03-08

3.  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

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

6.  Comparison of bi- and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to select men for active surveillance.

Authors:  Karen-Cecilie D Thestrup; Vibeke Løgager; Lars Boesen; Henrik S Thomsen
Journal:  Acta Radiol Open       Date:  2019-07-31

Review 7.  Evolution of prostate MRI: from multiparametric standard to less-is-better and different-is better strategies.

Authors:  Rossano Girometti; Lorenzo Cereser; Filippo Bonato; Chiara Zuiani
Journal:  Eur Radiol Exp       Date:  2019-01-28

8.  Diagnostic Ability of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer and Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Equivocal Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Jing Zeng; Qingqing Cheng; Dong Zhang; Meng Fan; Changzheng Shi; Liangping Luo
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-02-19       Impact factor: 6.244

9.  Biparametric versus multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: detection of clinically significant cancer in a perfect match group.

Authors:  Jungheum Cho; Hyungwoo Ahn; Sung Il Hwang; Hak Jong Lee; Gheeyoung Choe; Seok-Soo Byun; Sung Kyu Hong
Journal:  Prostate Int       Date:  2020-02-26

10.  Improving workflow in prostate MRI: AI-based decision-making on biparametric or multiparametric MRI.

Authors:  Andreas M Hötker; Raffaele Da Mutten; Anja Tiessen; Ender Konukoglu; Olivio F Donati
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2021-08-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.