Borna K Barth1, Niels J Rupp2, Alexander Cornelius3, Daniel Nanz1,4, Rainer Grobholz5, Martin Schmidtpeter6,7, Peter J Wild2,8, Daniel Eberli9, Olivio F Donati1. 1. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Zurich. 2. Department of Pathology and Molecular Pathology, Zurich. 3. Department of Urology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich. 4. Department of Radiology, Zurich. 5. Institute for Pathology, Switzerland. 6. Swiss Center for Musculoskeletal Imaging, Balgrist Campus AG, Zurich. 7. Department of Urology, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Aarau. 8. Urologiepraxis Lenzburg, Lenzburg, Switzerland. 9. Dr. Senckenberg Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare diagnostic accuracy of a prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) protocol for detection of prostate cancer between images acquired with and without en-dorectal coil (ERC). MATERIALS: This study was approved by the regional ethics committee. Between 2014 and 2015, 33 patients (median age 51.3 years; range 42.1-77.3 years) who underwent prostate-MRI at 3T scanners at 2 different institutions, acquired with (mpMRIERC) and without (mpMRIPPA) ERC and who received radical prostatectomy, were included in this retrospective study. Two expert readers (R1, R2) attributed a PI-RADS version 2 score for the most suspect (i. e. index) lesion for mpMRIPPA and mpMRIERC. Sensitivity and positive predictive value for detection of index lesions were assessed using 2 × 2 contingency tables. Differences between groups were tested using the McNemar test. Whole-mount histopathology served as reference standard. RESULTS: On a quadrant-basis cumulative sensitivity ranged between 0.61-0.67 and 0.76-0.88 for mpMRIPPA and mpMRIERC protocols, respectively (p > 0.05). Cumulative positive predictive value ranged between 0.80-0.81 and 0.89-0.91 for mpMRIPPA and mpMRIERC protocols, respectively. The differences were not statistically significant for R1 (p = 0.267) or R2 (p = 0.508). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that there may be no significant differences for detection of prostate cancer between images acquired with and without an ERC.
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare diagnostic accuracy of a prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) protocol for detection of prostate cancer between images acquired with and without en-dorectal coil (ERC). MATERIALS: This study was approved by the regional ethics committee. Between 2014 and 2015, 33 patients (median age 51.3 years; range 42.1-77.3 years) who underwent prostate-MRI at 3T scanners at 2 different institutions, acquired with (mpMRIERC) and without (mpMRIPPA) ERC and who received radical prostatectomy, were included in this retrospective study. Two expert readers (R1, R2) attributed a PI-RADS version 2 score for the most suspect (i. e. index) lesion for mpMRIPPA and mpMRIERC. Sensitivity and positive predictive value for detection of index lesions were assessed using 2 × 2 contingency tables. Differences between groups were tested using the McNemar test. Whole-mount histopathology served as reference standard. RESULTS: On a quadrant-basis cumulative sensitivity ranged between 0.61-0.67 and 0.76-0.88 for mpMRIPPA and mpMRIERC protocols, respectively (p > 0.05). Cumulative positive predictive value ranged between 0.80-0.81 and 0.89-0.91 for mpMRIPPA and mpMRIERC protocols, respectively. The differences were not statistically significant for R1 (p = 0.267) or R2 (p = 0.508). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that there may be no significant differences for detection of prostate cancer between images acquired with and without an ERC.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diagnostic accuracy; Endorectal coil; Index lesion; Prostate MRI; Prostate cancer
Authors: T Ullrich; M Quentin; C Oelers; F Dietzel; L M Sawicki; C Arsov; R Rabenalt; P Albers; G Antoch; D Blondin; H J Wittsack; L Schimmöller Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2017-03-04 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Borna K Barth; Pieter J L De Visschere; Alexander Cornelius; Carlos Nicolau; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Daniel Eberli; Olivio F Donati Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Caroline M A Hoeks; Martijn G Schouten; Joyce G R Bomers; Stefan P Hoogendoorn; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Thomas Hambrock; Henk Vergunst; J P Michiel Sedelaar; Jurgen J Fütterer; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Olivio F Donati; Sung Il Jung; Hebert Alberto Vargas; David H Gultekin; Junting Zheng; Chaya S Moskowitz; Hedvig Hricak; Michael J Zelefsky; Oguz Akin Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-03-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Josephin Gawlitza; Martin Reiss-Zimmermann; Gregor Thörmer; Alexander Schaudinn; Nicolas Linder; Nikita Garnov; Lars-Christian Horn; Do Hoang Minh; Roman Ganzer; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Thomas Kahn; Michael Moche; Harald Busse Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 4.379
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
Authors: Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Gianluca Giannarini; Caroline M Moore; Anwar R Padhani; Valeria Panebianco; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Georg Salomon; Baris Turkbey; Geert Villeirs; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Eur Urol Oncol Date: 2020-03-17
Authors: T Ullrich; M D Kohli; M A Ohliger; K Magudia; S S Arora; T Barrett; L K Bittencourt; D J Margolis; L Schimmöller; B Turkbey; A C Westphalen Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2020-07-21