Literature DB >> 8571856

Local staging of prostatic carcinoma: comparison of transrectal sonography and endorectal MR imaging.

J C Presti1, H Hricak, P A Narayan, K Shinohara, S White, P R Carroll.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We compared the results of transrectal sonography and endorectal MR imaging in the local staging of prostatic carcinoma. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: 56 patients (mean age, 61.1 +/- 7.3 years) with the diagnosis of prostate cancer who by transrectal sonography had no evidence of gross extracapsular extension underwent endorectal coil MR imaging prior to radical prostatectomy. Imaging findings prospectively evaluated in each patient were cancer laterality, extracapsular extension, and seminal vesicle invasion. Twenty-one of 56 (38%) patients had extracapsular extension on final pathology. A total of 100 sides and five seminal vesicles were involved with cancer, and 27 sides (21 patients, six with bilateral extracapsular extension) demonstrated extracapsular extension. Imaging results were correlated with step-sectioned, radical prostatectomy pathologic data, and statistical analysis was expressed at a p = .05 level of significance. Retrospective readings of the images were used to construct receiver operating characteristic curves for the detection of extracapsular extension.
RESULTS: For tumor laterality, transrectal sonography was compared with endorectal coil MR imaging for sensitivity (70% versus 97%; p < .001), specificity (58% versus 58%), positive predictive value (93% versus 95%) and negative predictive value (18% versus 70%). For extracapsular extension, transrectal sonography was compared with endorectal coil MR imaging for the entire prostate and individually for each side of the prostate. The respective results for sensitivity (48% versus 91%, p < .01 and 37% versus 78%, p < .005), specificity (71% versus 49% and 87% versus 73%), positive predictive value (50% versus 51% and 48% versus 48%), and negative predictive value (69% versus 90% and 81% versus 91%). The receiver operating characteristic analysis of retrospective data demonstrated endorectal coil MR imaging to be superior to transrectal sonography in the detection of extracapsular extension. The small number of seminal vesicles involved by cancer (n = 5) precluded meaningful comparisons between the imaging techniques.
CONCLUSIONS: Endorectal coil MR imaging is more sensitive but less specific than transrectal sonography for detecting extracapsular extension of carcinoma of the prostate. Both procedures have low positive predictive values yet similarly high negative predictive values when each side of the prostate is assessed independently for extracapsular extension.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8571856     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.166.1.8571856

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


  20 in total

Review 1.  Prostate MR imaging at high-field strength: evolution or revolution?

Authors:  Olivier Rouvière; Robert P Hartman; Denis Lyonnet
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-09-10       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  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

3.  Preoperative mp-MRI of the prostate provides little information about staging of prostate carcinoma in daily clinical practice.

Authors:  Andrea Billing; Alexander Buchner; Christian Stief; Alexander Roosen
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-11-29       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Is endorectal coil necessary for the staging of clinically localized prostate cancer? Comparison of non-endorectal versus endorectal MR imaging.

Authors:  Seung Hwan Lee; Kyung Kgi Park; Kyung Hwa Choi; Beom Jin Lim; Joo Hee Kim; Seung Wook Lee; Byung Ha Chung
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2010-07-11       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer: evaluation by using multiparametric endorectal MR imaging.

Authors:  Fatma Nur Soylu; Yahui Peng; Yulei Jiang; Shiyang Wang; Christine Schmid-Tannwald; Ila Sethi; Scott Eggener; Tatjana Antic; Aytekin Oto
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-02-25       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Hyperpolarized 13C Metabolic Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy and Imaging.

Authors:  Eugen Kubala; Kim A Muñoz-Álvarez; Geoffrey Topping; Christian Hundshammer; Benedikt Feuerecker; Pedro A Gómez; Giorgio Pariani; Franz Schilling; Steffen J Glaser; Rolf F Schulte; Marion I Menzel; Markus Schwaiger
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2016-12-30       Impact factor: 1.355

7.  Incremental value of high b value diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 3-T for prediction of extracapsular extension in patients with prostate cancer: preliminary experience.

Authors:  Ayumu Kido; Tsutomu Tamada; Teruki Sone; Naoki Kanomata; Yoshiyuki Miyaji; Akira Yamamoto; Katsuyoshi Ito
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2016-12-09       Impact factor: 3.469

Review 8.  [Innovative concepts in early cancer detection and staging of localized prostate cancer].

Authors:  L Rinnab; R Küfer; R E Hautmann; B G Volkmer; M Straub; N M Blumstein; H W Gottfried
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 0.639

9.  Modalities for imaging of prostate cancer.

Authors:  A H Hou; D Swanson; A B Barqawi
Journal:  Adv Urol       Date:  2010-03-17

10.  A urologist's perspective on prostate cancer imaging: past, present, and future.

Authors:  Arvin K George; Baris Turkbey; Subin G Valayil; Akhil Muthigi; Francesca Mertan; Michael Kongnyuy; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2016-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.