3.0 T multiparametric prostate MRI using pelvic phased-array coil: Utility for tumor detection prior to biopsy

被引:13
|
作者
Rosenkrantz, Andrew B. [1 ]
Mussi, Thais C. [1 ]
Borofsky, Michael S. [2 ]
Scionti, Stephen S. [2 ]
Grasso, Michael [3 ]
Taneja, Samir S. [2 ]
机构
[1] NYU Langone Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, New York, NY 10016 USA
[2] NYU Langone Med Ctr, Dept Urol, Div Urol Oncol, New York, NY 10016 USA
[3] Lenox Hill Hosp, Dept Urol, New York, NY 10075 USA
关键词
Prostate cancer; Biopsy; MRI; CONTRAST-ENHANCED MRI; CANCER DETECTION; COMBINATION; SEXTANT; IMAGES;
D O I
10.1016/j.urolonc.2012.02.018
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Objective: To evaluate the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) performed in men without a biopsy-proven diagnosis of prostate cancer using follow-up biopsy as the reference standard. Materials and methods: Forty-two patients without biopsy-proven cancer and who underwent MRI were included. In all patients, MRI was performed at 3T using a pelvic phased-array coil and included T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging, and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging. Thirteen had undergone no previous biopsy, and 29 had undergone at least 1 previous negative biopsy. All patients underwent prostate biopsy following MRI. Two fellowship-trained radiologists in consensus reviewed all cases and categorized each lobe as positive or negative for tumor. These interpretations were correlated with findings on post-MRI biopsy. Results: Follow-up biopsy was positive in 23 lobes in 15 patients (36% of study cohort). On a per-patient basis, MRI had a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 74%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 68%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 100%. On a per-lobe basis, MRI had a sensitivity of 65%, specificity of 84%, PPV of 60%, and NPV of 86%. There was a nearly significant association between Gleason score and tumor detection on MRI (P = 0.072). Conclusions: In our sample, MRI had 100% sensitivity in predicting the presence of tumor on subsequent biopsy on a per-patient basis, suggesting a possible role for MRI in selecting patients with an elevated prostatic specific antigen (PSA) to undergo prostate biopsy. However, MRI had weaker specificity for prediction of a subsequent positive biopsy, as well as weaker sensitivity for tumor on a per-lobe basis, indicating that in patients with a positive MRI result, tissue sampling remains necessary for confirmation of the diagnosis as well as for treatment planning. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1430 / 1435
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Mr imaging of the prostate at 3.0T with external phased array coil -: Preliminary results
    Morakkabati-Spitz, N.
    Bastian, P. J.
    Gieseke, J.
    Traeber, F.
    Kuhl, C. K.
    Wattjes, M. P.
    Mueller, S. C.
    Schild, H. H.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2008, 13 (06) : 287 - 291
  • [32] Validation of PI-RADS v.2 for prostate cancer diagnosis with MRI at 3T using an external phased-array coil
    Baldisserotto, Matteo
    Dornelles Neto, Eurico J.
    Carvalhal, Gustavo
    de Toledo, Aloyso F.
    de Almeida, Clovis M.
    Cairoli, Carlos E. D.
    de Silva, Daniel O.
    Carvalhal, Eduardo
    Paganin, Ricardo P.
    Agra, Alexandre
    de Santos, Francisco S.
    Noronha, Jorge A. P.
    JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2016, 44 (05) : 1354 - 1359
  • [33] Accuracy of thin section magnetic resonance using phased-array pelvic coil in predicting the T-staging of rectal cancer
    Poon, FW
    McDonald, A
    Anderson, JH
    Duthie, E
    Rodger, C
    McCurrach, G
    McKee, RF
    Horgan, PG
    Foulis, AK
    Chong, D
    Finlay, IG
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2005, 53 (02) : 256 - 262
  • [34] Comparison of image quality and patient discomfort in prostate MRI: pelvic phased array coil vs. endorectal coil
    Barth, Borna K.
    Cornelius, Alexander
    Nanz, Daniel
    Eberli, Daniel
    Donati, Olivio F.
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2016, 41 (11) : 2218 - 2226
  • [35] Comparison of image quality and patient discomfort in prostate MRI: pelvic phased array coil vs. endorectal coil
    Borna K. Barth
    Alexander Cornelius
    Daniel Nanz
    Daniel Eberli
    Olivio F. Donati
    Abdominal Radiology, 2016, 41 : 2218 - 2226
  • [36] COMPARISON OF IMAGE QUALITY AND PATIENT DISCOMFORT IN PROSTATE MRI: ENDORECTAL COIL VS. PELVIC PHASED ARRAY COIL
    Barth, Borna K.
    Cornelius, Alexander
    Nanz, Daniel
    Eberli, Daniel
    Donati, Olivio F.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2016, 195 (04): : E165 - E165
  • [37] Tumor staging using 3.0 T multiparametric MRI in prostate cancer: impact on treatment decisions for radical radiotherapy
    Counago, Felipe
    del Cerro, Elia
    Aurora Diaz-Gavela, Ana
    Jose Marcos, Francisco
    Recio, Manuel
    Sanz-Rosa, David
    Thuissard, Israel
    Olaciregui, Karmele
    Mateo, Maria
    Cerezo, Laura
    SPRINGERPLUS, 2015, 4 : 1 - 8
  • [38] Multicenter validation of prostate tumor localization using multiparametric MRI and prior knowledge
    Cuong Viet Dinh
    Steenbergen, Peter
    Ghobadi, Ghazaleh
    van der Poel, Henk
    Heijmink, Stijn W. T. P. J.
    de Jong, Jeroen
    Isebaert, Sofi E.
    Haustermans, Karin
    Lerut, Evelyne
    Oyen, Raymond
    Ou, Yangming
    Christos, Davatzikos
    van der Heide, Uulke A.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2017, 44 (03) : 949 - 961
  • [39] Rectal carcinoma: Prospective staging using combined pelvic phased-array and endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging
    Sica, GT
    Horwich, PJ
    Breen, E
    Amin, RS
    McTavish, JD
    Bleday, R
    RADIOLOGY, 2002, 225 : 244 - 244
  • [40] Pelvic phased-array mpMRI versus saturation biopsy: a diagnostic performance analysis in men with suspected advanced prostate cancer
    Liu, Guangzhen
    Yan, Tingfei
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2020, 54 (01) : 14 - 19