Prostate cancer: Detection of extracapsular extension by genitourinary and general body radiologists at MR imaging

Radiology

Volumn 232, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 140-146

  Mullerad, Michael ^a   Hricak, Hedvig ^a   Wang, Liang ^a   Chen, Hui Ni ^a   Kattan, Michael W ^a   Scardino, Peter T ^a  

^a MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Diagnostic radiology, observer performance; Magnetic resonance (MR), coils; Magnetic resonance (MR), spectroscopy; Prostate, biopsy; Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; MULTIVARIATE LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC;

ADULT; AGED; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RADIOLOGY; ROC CURVE; SPECIALTIES, MEDICAL; UROLOGY;

EID: 2942746398     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2321031254     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Pearson JD. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology 2001; 58:843-848.
2. Kattan MW, Stapleton AM, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. Evaluation of a nomogram used to predict the pathologic stage of clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer 1997; 79:528-537.
3. Graefen M, Karakiewicz PI, Cagiannos I, et al. Validation study of the accuracy of a postoperative nomogram for recurrence after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 951-956.
4. McSherry S, Levy F, Schiebler ML, Keefe B, Dent GA, Mohler JL. Preoperative prediction of pathological tumor volume and stage in clinically localized prostate cancer: comparison of digital rectal examination, transrectal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 1991; 146:85-89.
5. Schiebler M, McSherry S, Keefe B, et al. Comparison of the digital rectal examination, endorectal ultrasound, and body coil magnetic resonance imaging in the staging of adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Urol Radiol 1991; 13:110-118.
6. Rifkin MD, Zerhouni EA, Gatsonis CA, et al. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in staging early prostate cancer: results of a multiinstitutional cooperative trial. N Engl J Med 1990; 323:621-626.
7. Schiebler ML, Yankaskas BC, Tempany C, et al. MR imaging in adenocarcinoma of the prostate: interobserver variation and efficacy for determining stage C disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992; 158:559-562; discussion 563-564.
8. Tempany CM, Zhou X, Zerhouni EA, et al. Staging of prostate cancer: results of Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group project comparison of three MR imaging techniques. Radiology 1994; 192:47-54.
9. Walsh PC. Editorial comment (letter). J Urol 2000; 163:1375.
10. Wang L, Mullerad M, Chen HN, et al. Prostate cancer: incremental value of endorectal MR imaging findings for prediction of extracapsular extension. Radiology 2004; 232:133-139.
11. Bottomley PA. Selective volume method for performing localized MR spectroscopy. U.S. patent 4 480 228, 1984.
12. Star-Lack J, Nelson SJ, Kurhanewicz J, Huang LR, Vigneron DB. Improved water and lipid suppression for 31) PRESS CSI using RF band selective inversion with gradient dephasing (BASING). Magn Reson Med 1997; 38:311-321.
13. Brown TR, Kincaid BM, Ugurbil K. NMR chemical shift imaging in three dimensions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1982; 79:3523-3526.
14. Nelson S, Day MR, Carvajal L, et al. Methods for analysis of serial volume MRI and 1H MRS data for the assessment of response to therapy in patients with brain tumors (abstr). In: Proceedings of the Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine and the European Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine and Biology. Berkeley, Calif: Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 1995.
15. Yu KK, Scheidler J, Hricak H, et al. Prostate cancer: prediction of extracapsular extension with endorectal MR imaging and three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 1999; 213: 481-488.
16. Rubin MA, Bassily N, Sanda M, Montie J, Strawderman MS, Wojno K. Relationship and significance of greatest percentage of tumor and perineural invasion on needle biopsy in prostatic adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2000; 24:183-189.
17. Bismar TA, Lewis JS Jr, Vollmer RT, Humphrey PA. Multiple measures of carcinoma extent versus perineural invasion in prostate needle biopsy tissue in prediction of pathologic stage in a screening population. Am J Surg Pathol 2003; 27: 432-440.
18. Yossepowitch O, Sircar K, Scardino PT, et al. Bladder neck involvement in pathological stage pT4 radical prostatectomy specimens is not an independent prognostic factor. J Urol 2002; 168:2011-2015.
19. Shahian DM, Normand SL. The volume-outcome relationship: from Luft to Leap-frog. Ann Thorac Surg 2003; 75:1048-1058.
20. Birkmeyer JD. Should we regionalize major surgery? potential benefits and policy considerations. J Am Coll Surg 2000; 190: 341-349.
21. Yao SL, Lu-Yao G. Population-based study of relationships between hospital volume of prostatectomies, patient outcomes, and length of hospital stay. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999; 91:1950-1956.
22. Ellison LM, Heaney JA, Birkmeyer JD. The effect of hospital volume on mortality and resource use after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2000; 163:867-869.
23. Begg CB, Riedel ER, Bach PB, et al. Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy. N Engl J Med 2002; 346:1138-1144.
24. Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, Lane RB, Lane CG, Epstein JI. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. Hum Pathol 2001; 32:81-88.
25. Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: urologic pathologists. Hum Pathol 2001; 32:74-80.
26. Dudley RA, Hricak H, Scheidler J, et al. Shared patient analysis: a method to assess the clinical benefits of patient referrals. Med Care 2001; 39:1182-1187.
27. Langlotz CP. Benefits and costs of MR imaging of prostate cancer. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 1996; 4:533-544.
28. Berlin L. Reporting the "missed" radiologic diagnosis: medicolegal and ethical considerations. Radiology 1994; 192:183-187.
29. Kalbhen CL, Yetter EM, Olson MC, Posniak HV, Aranha GV. Assessing the resectability of pancreatic carcinoma: the value of reinterpreting abdominal CT performed at other institutions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171:1571-1576.
30. Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 2002; 224: 861-869.
31. Tsuda K, Yu KK, Coakley FV, Srivastav SK, Scheidler JF, Hricak H. Detection of extra capsular extension of prostate cancer: role of fat suppression endorectal MRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1999; 23:74-78.
32. Kattan MW. Judging new markers by their ability to improve predictive accuracy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95:634-635.
33. Penson DF, Litwin MS, Aaronson NK. Health related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. J Urol 2003; 169:1653-1661.
34. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz B, et al. Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging as a predictor of biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2000; 164:759-763.
35. May F, Treumann T, Dettmar P, Hartung R, Breul J. Limited value of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasonography in the staging of clinically localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2001; 87: 66-69.