Literature DB >> 3797645

Prostatic carcinoma: staging by clinical assessment, CT, and MR imaging.

H Hricak, G C Dooms, R B Jeffrey, A Avallone, D Jacobs, W K Benton, P Narayan, E A Tanagho.   

Abstract

The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values of clinical assessment, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging were compared in the differentiation of stage B from stage C prostatic carcinoma. Forty-six patients who had undergone radical prostatectomy were included in the study. Surgical-pathologic staging was considered the "truth measure." Clinical staging had an accuracy of 61%, and CT, 65%. Accuracy for MR imaging depended on the instrument parameters and plane of section used. When only transverse T1-weighted images were analyzed, MR accuracy was 61%. However, when transverse T1- and T2-weighted images supplemented by additional T2-weighted coronal or sagittal images were studied, accuracy increased to 83%. At present, MR imaging is the most accurate diagnostic modality for the local staging of carcinoma of the prostate, but for optimal results, multiple sequences and two orthogonal planes of imaging are needed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3797645     DOI: 10.1148/radiology.162.2.3797645

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


  25 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Comparison between population average and experimentally measured arterial input function in predicting biopsy results in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ran Meng; Silvia D Chang; Edward C Jones; S Larry Goldenberg; Piotr Kozlowski
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2010-01-13       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Magnetic resonance imaging and pelvic abnormalities.

Authors:  H Hricak
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1987-11

4.  A data-driven approach to prostate cancer detection from dynamic contrast enhanced MRI.

Authors:  Nandinee Fariah Haq; Piotr Kozlowski; Edward C Jones; Silvia D Chang; S Larry Goldenberg; Mehdi Moradi
Journal:  Comput Med Imaging Graph       Date:  2014-07-05       Impact factor: 4.790

5.  Advances in diagnosis and management of prostate cancer.

Authors:  S L Goldenberg
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 3.275

6.  Imaging and compartmental classification of solid pelvic tumours in children.

Authors:  C Hugosson; R Nyman; B Jacobsson; H Jorulf; P McDonald; K Sackey
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  1996-12

Review 7.  Biparametric MRI of the prostate.

Authors:  Michele Scialpi; Alfredo D'Andrea; Eugenio Martorana; Corrado Maria Malaspina; Maria Cristina Aisa; Maria Napoletano; Emanuele Orlandi; Valeria Rondoni; Pietro Scialpi; Diamante Pacchiarini; Diego Palladino; Michele Dragone; Giancarlo Di Renzo; Annalisa Simeone; Giampaolo Bianchi; Luca Brunese
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2017-12-01

8.  Initial Evaluation of [(18)F]DCFPyL for Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA)-Targeted PET Imaging of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Zsolt Szabo; Esther Mena; Steven P Rowe; Donika Plyku; Rosa Nidal; Mario A Eisenberger; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Hong Fan; Robert F Dannals; Ying Chen; Ronnie C Mease; Melin Vranesic; Akrita Bhatnagar; George Sgouros; Steve Y Cho; Martin G Pomper
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 3.488

9.  Cystosarcoma phyllodes of the prostate: MRI findings.

Authors:  E M Olson; M A Trambert; R F Mattrey
Journal:  Abdom Imaging       Date:  1994 Mar-Apr

10.  Clinical experience with intra lymphatic administration of 111In-labelled monoclonal antibody PAY 276 for the detection of pelvic nodal metastases in prostatic carcinoma.

Authors:  H H Abdel-Nabi; J A Ortman-Nabi; W See; J Lee; R Ireton; M Boileau; M W Unger; C Halverson
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med       Date:  1990
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.