Accuracy of 3-tesla magnetic resonance imaging for the staging of prostate cancer in comparison to the partin tables

Acta Radiologica

Volumn 50, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 562-569

  Augustin, H ^a   Fritz, G A ^a   Ehammer, T ^a   Auprich, M ^a   Pummer, K ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF GRAZ   (Austria)

Author keywords

MRI; Partin tables; Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy; Staging

Indexed keywords

MRI; PARTIN TABLES; PROSTATE CANCER; RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; STAGING;

DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING;

MAGNETIC RESONANCE;

AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; CANCER STAGING; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; EVALUATION; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATHOLOGY; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; PROSTATE TUMOR; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICS;

AREA UNDER CURVE; DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; NEOPLASM STAGING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 66949112927     PISSN: 02841851     EISSN: 16000455     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02841850902889846     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Kohn L, Corrigan J, Donaldson M. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999.
2. Congressional Budget Office. Research on the comparative effectiveness of medical treatments. Report number 2975. Washington, DC; 2007.
3. World Health Organization. The world health report 2006: working together for health. New York: United Nations; 2006.
4. World Health Organization. The world health report 2003: shaping the future. New York: United Nations; 2003.
5. Bhargavan M, Sunshine JH. Utilization of radiology services in the Unites States: levels and trends in modalities, regions, and populations. Radiology 2005; 234:824-32.
6. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Evidencebased medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1992;268:2420-5.
7. Sackett DL, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-based medicine. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1997.
8. Staunton M. Evidence-based radiology: steps 1 and 2: asking answerable questions and searching for evidence. Radiology 2007;242:23-31.
9. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:51-5.
10. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Dinnes J, Reitsma J, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. Development and validation of methods for assessing the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies. Health Technol Assess 2004;8:1-234.
11. McColl A, Smith H, White P, Field J. General practitioners' perceptions of the route to evidence based medicine: a questionnaire survey. BMJ 1998;316:361-5.
12. Malone DE, Staunton M. Evidence-based practice in radiology: step 5 (evaluate) - caveats and common questions. Radiology 2007;243:319-28.
13. Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Medical Decision Making 1991;11:88-94.
14. Tigges S, Pitts S. Introduction to clinical prediction rules for radiologists. Am J Roentgenol 1999;173:1443-6.
15. Blackmore C. Clinical prediction rules in trauma imaging: who, how and why? Radiology 2005;235:371-4.
16. Laupacis A, Seklar N, Stiell IG. Clinical prediction rules - a review and suggested modifications of methodological standards. JAMA 1997;277:488-94.
17. Medina LS, Blackmore CC. Evidence based radiology: review and dissemination. Radiology 2007;244:331-6.
18. Stiell IG, Greenberg GH, McKnight RD, Nair RC, McDowell I, Reardon M, et al. Decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. Refinement and prospective validation. JAMA 1993;269:1127-32.
19. Leddy LL, Kesari A, Smolinski RJ. Implementation of the Ottawa ankle rule in a university sports medicine center. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2002;34:57-62.
20. Chandra A, Schafmayer A. Diagnostic value of a clinical test for exclusion of fractures after acute ankle sprains. A prospective study for evaluating the "Ottawa Ankle Rules" in Germany. Unfallchirurg 2001;104:617-21.
21. Tay SY, Thoo FL, Sitoh YY, Seow E, Wong HP. The Ottawa Ankle Rules in Asia: validating a clinical decision rule for requesting X-rays in twisting ankle and foot injuries. J Emerg Med 1999;17:945-7.
22. Fiesseler F, Szucs P, Kec R, Richman PB. Can nurses appropriately interpret the Ottawa Ankle Rule? Am J Emerg Med 2004;22:145-8.
23. Stiell IG, Greenberg GH, Wells GA, McDowell I, Cwinn AA, Smith NA, et al. Prospective validation of a decision rule for the use of radiography in acute knee injuries. JAMA 1996;275:611-5.
24. Hoffman J, Mower W, Wolfson A, Todd K, Zucker M. Validity of a set of clinical criteria to rule out injury to the cervical spine in patients with blunt trauma. N Eng J Med 2000;343:94-9.
25. Stiell I, Wells G, Vandemheen K, Clement CM, Lesiuk H, De Maio VJ, et al. The Canadian C-spine rule for radiography in alert and stable trauma patients. JAMA 2001;286:1841-8.
26. Blackmore CC. Evidence-based imaging evaluation of the cervical spine in trauma. Neuroimag Clin N Am 2003;13:283-91.
27. Haydel M, Preston C, Mills T, Luber S, Blaudeau E, DeBlieux P. Indications for computed tomography in patients with minor head injury. N Eng J Med 2000;343: 100-5.
28. Smits M, Dippel DWJ, de Haan GG. External validation of the Canadian CT Head Rule and the New Orleans Criteria for CT scanning in patients with minor head injury. JAMA 2005;294:1519-25.
29. Stiell IG, Wells GA, Vandemheen K, Clement C, Lesiuk H, Laupacis A, et al. The Canadian CT head rule for patients with minor head injury. Lancet 2001;357:1391-6.
30. Da Dalt L, Marchi AG, Laudizi L, Crichiutti G, Messi G, Pavanello L, et al. Predictors of intracranial injuries in children after blunt head trauma. Eur J Pediatr 2006; 165:142-8.
31. Holmes JF, Panacek EA, Miller PQ, Lapidis AD, Mower WR. Prospective evaluation of criteria for obtaining thoracolumbar radiographs in trauma patients. J Emerg Med 2003;24:1-7.
32. Bub LD, Hollingworth W, Jarvik JG, Hallam DK. Screening for blunt cerebrovascular injury: evaluating the accuracy of multidetector computed tomography angiography. J Trauma 2005;59:691-7.
33. Blackmore CC, Emerson SS, Mann FA, Koepsell TD. Cervical spine imaging in patients with trauma: determination of fracture risk to optimize use. Radiology 1999;211:759-65.
34. Hanson JA, Blackmore CC, Mann FA, Wilson AJ. Cervical spine screening: a decision rule can identify high risk patients to undergo screening helical CT of the cervical spine. Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:713-8.
35. Washington State Health Care Authority, Washington Health Technology Assessment Program. Available at URL: http://www.hta.hca.wa.gov/ (accessed June 30, 2008).
36. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. What we do. Available at URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/ (accessed November 10, 2008).