Topographical sensitivity and specificity of endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection

Urologia Internationalis

Volumn 84, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 388-394

  Colleselli, Daniela ^a   Schilling, David ^a   Lichy, Matthias P ^a   Hennenlotter, Jörg ^a   Vogel, Ulrich H ^b   Krueger, Stephan A ^a   Kuehs, Ursula ^a   Schlemmer, Heinz Peter ^a   Stenzl, Arnulf ^a   Schwentner, Christian ^a,c  

^a Department of Urology ^*  (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Endorectal coil; Endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging, sensitivity and specificity; Local staging; Magnetic resonance imaging; Radical prostatectomy

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER LOCALIZATION; CANCER STAGING; ENDORECTAL COIL NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; BIOPSY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DEVICES; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; GERMANY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

AGED; BIOPSY; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; GERMANY; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTATE; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 77953229583     PISSN: 00421138     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000300572     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Boyle P, Ferlay J: Cancer incidence and mortality in Europe. Ann Oncol 2004; 16: 481-488.
2. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Thun MJ: Cancer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin 2007; 57: 43-66.
3. Greenlee RT, Hill-Harmon MB, Murray T, Thun M: Cancer statistics, 2001. CA Cancer J Clin 2001; 51: 15-36.
4. Ward JF, Slezak JM, Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Zincke H: Radical prostatectomy for clinically advanced (cT3) prostate cancer since the advent of prostate-specific antigen testing: 15-year outcome. BJU Int 2005; 95: 751-756.
5. Ozden C, Oztekin CV, Ugurlu O, Gokkaya S, Yaris M, Memis A: Correlation between upgrading of prostate biopsy and biochemical failure and unfavorable pathology after radical prostatectomy. Urol Int 2009; 83: 146-150.
6. Barocas DA, Han M, Epstein JI, Chan DY, Trock BJ, Walsh PC, Partin AW: Does capsular incision at radical retropubic prostatectomy affect disease-free survival in otherwise organ-confined prostate cancer? Urology 2001; 58: 746-751.
7. Lujan M, Paez A, Santonja C, Pascual T, Fernandez I, Berenguer A: Prostate cancer detection and tumor characteristics in men with multiple biopsy sessions. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2004; 7: 238-242.
8. Djavan B, Milani S, Remzi M: Prostate biopsy: who, how and when. An update. Can J Urol 2005; 12(suppl 1):44-48.
9. Schiebler ML, Schnall MD, Pollack HM, Lenkinski RE, Tomaszewski JE, Wein AJ, Whittington R, Rauschning W, Kressel HY: Current role of MR imaging in the staging of adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Radiology 1993; 189: 339-352.
10. Nakashima J, Tanimoto A, Imai Y, Mukai M, Horiguchi Y, Nakagawa K, Oya M, Ohigashi T, Marumo K, Murai M: Endorectal MRI for prediction of tumor site, tumor size, and local extension of prostate cancer. Urology 2004; 64: 101-105.
11. Beyersdorff D, Hamm B: MRI for troubleshooting detection of prostate cancer. Rofo 2005; 177: 788-795.
12. Anastasiadis AG, Lichy MP, Nagele U, Kuczyk MA, Merseburger AS, Hennenlotter J, Corvin S, Sievert KD, Claussen CD, Stenzl A, et al: MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate increases diagnostic performance in men with elevated or increasing PSA levels after previous negative TRUS biopsies. Eur Urol 2006; 50: 738-748.
13. Boni RA, Hutter BE, Trinkler F, Jochum W, Pestalozzi D, Krestin GP: Preoperative Tstaging of prostatic carcinoma: endorectal magnetic resonance tomography compared with other imaging and clinical methods. Rofo 1996; 165: 152-158.
14. Colombo T, Schips L, Augustin H, Gruber H, Hebel P, Petritsch PH, Hubmer G: Value of transrectal ultrasound in preoperative staging of prostate cancer. Minerva Urol Nefrol 1999; 51: 1-4.
15. Presti JC Jr, Hricak H, Narayan PA, Shinohara K, White S, Carroll PR: Local staging of prostatic carcinoma: comparison of transrectal sonography and endorectal MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 166: 103-108.
16. Jeong CW, Park HK, Hong SK, Byun SS, Lee HJ, Lee SE: Comparison of prostate volume measured by transrectal ultrasonography and MRI with the actual prostate volume measured after radical prostatectomy. Urol Int 2008; 81: 179-185.
17. Lee JS, Chung BH: Transrectal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging in the estimation of prostate volume as compared with radical prostatectomy specimens. Urol Int 2007; 78: 323-327.
18. Schlemmer HP, Merkle J, Grobholz R, Jaeger T, Michel MS, Werner A, Rabe J, van Kaick G: Can preoperative contrast-enhanced dynamic MR imaging for prostate cancer predict microvessel density in prostatectomy specimens? Eur Radiol 2004; 14: 309-317.
19. Pirtskhalaishvili G, Hrebinko RL, Nelson JB: The treatment of prostate cancer: an overview of current options. Cancer Pract 2001; 9: 295-306.
20. Beerlage HP, Thuroff S, Madersbacher S, Zlotta AR, Aus G, de Reijke TM, de la Rosette JJ: Current status of minimally invasive treatment options for localized prostate carcinoma. Eur Urol 2000; 37: 2-13.
21. Beyersdorff D, Taupitz M, Winkelmann B, Fischer T, Lenk S, Loening SA, Hamm B: Patients with a history of elevated prostate-specific antigen levels and negative transrectal US-guided quadrant or sextant biopsy results: value of MR imaging. Radiology 2002; 224: 701-706.
22. Tempany CM, Zhou X, Zerhouni EA, Rifkin MD, Quint LE, Piccoli CW, Ellis JH, McNeil BJ: Staging of prostate cancer: results of Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group project comparison of three MR imaging techniques. Radiology 1994; 192: 47-54.