Literature DB >> 3496756

The accuracy of CT in the staging of carcinoma of the prostate.

J F Platt, R L Bree, R E Schwab.   

Abstract

Previous studies have reported the accuracy of CT in distinguishing stages of prostatic carcinoma, but they lack uniform surgical proof of histopathologic stage. We evaluated CT scans in 32 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy to assess its role in the preoperative staging of prostatic carcinoma. Two experienced radiologists blindly interpreted CT scans of the pelvis; they looked for evidence of tumor beyond the prostatic capsule and involvement of the seminal vesicles (stage C) or involvement of pelvic lymph nodes (stage D). Sixty-four interpretations in 32 patients yielded a specificity of 75% for predicting stages A or B disease (local disease), a sensitivity of 50% for the prediction of stages C or D, and an overall accuracy of staging of 67%. Interpretation errors were due to an inability to detect lymph node metastases, errors in evaluating the seminal vesicles, and errors in interpreting densities surrounding the prostate gland. Our data suggest that CT should not be used to influence decisions concerning surgical vs nonsurgical treatment in patients with clinically staged local disease and is only useful when unsuspected metastatic nodal disease is detected.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3496756     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.149.2.315

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  9 in total

1.  Cost-analysis of staging methods for lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: MRI with a lymph node-specific contrast agent compared to pelvic lymph node dissection or CT.

Authors:  Anke M Hövels; Roel A M Heesakkers; Eddy M Adang; Gerrit J Jager; Jelle O Barentsz
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-07-13       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  The emergence of radioimmunoscintigraphy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Thomas E Keane; Inger L Rosner; M Scott Wingo; David G McLeod
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2006

Review 3.  Optimal cost-effective staging evaluations in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Gregory L Lacy; Douglas W Soderdahl; Javier Hernandez
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 4.  Primary staging of prostate cancer.

Authors:  G J Jager; J O Barentz; E T Ruijter; J J de la Rosette; G O Oosterhof
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 5.  Localised carcinoma of the prostate: a paradigm of uncertainty.

Authors:  S S Sandhu; A V Kaisary
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 2.401

6.  Transrectal Ultrasound of Prostatic Carcinoma: A new way to evaluate benign and malignant conditions.

Authors:  D J Murray; P L Cooperberg; S L Goldenberg; A Toi
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1991-06       Impact factor: 3.275

Review 7.  New horizons in prostate cancer imaging.

Authors:  Gregory Ravizzini; Baris Turkbey; Karen Kurdziel; Peter L Choyke
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2008-11-07       Impact factor: 3.528

Review 8.  Imaging localized prostate cancer: current approaches and new developments.

Authors:  Baris Turkbey; Paul S Albert; Karen Kurdziel; Peter L Choyke
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 9.  The very-high-risk prostate cancer: a contemporary update.

Authors:  R Mano; J Eastham; O Yossepowitch
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2016-09-13       Impact factor: 5.554

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.