Concordance of preoperative prostate endorectal MRI with subsequent prostatectomy specimen in high-risk prostate cancer patients

Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations

Volumn 31, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 601-606

  Nepple, Kenneth G ^a   Rosevear, Henry M ^a   Stolpen, Alan H ^a   Brown, James A ^a   Williams, Richard D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

Magnetic resonance imaging; Pathology; Prostatectomy; Prostatic neoplasms; Sensitivity; Specificity

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER PATIENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; ENDORECTAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; LYMPHADENOPATHY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PREDICTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

AGED; BIOPSY; HUMANS; LYMPHATIC METASTASIS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PROSTATE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RECTUM; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 84879460500     PISSN: 10781439     EISSN: 18732496     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.05.004     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Lavery H.J., Brajtbord J.S., Levinson A.W., et al. Unnecessary imaging for the staging of low-risk prostate cancer is common. Urology 2011, 77:274-278.
2. Choi W.W., Williams S.B., Gu X., et al. Overuse of imaging for staging low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2011, 185:1645-1649.
3. Shao Y.H., Demissie K., Shih W., et al. Contemporary risk profile of prostate cancer in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009, 101:1280-1283.
4. Dinan M.A., Curtis L.H., Hammill B.G., et al. Changes in the use and costs of diagnostic imaging among Medicare beneficiaries with cancer, 1999-2006. JAMA 2010, 303:1625-1636.
5. Greene K.L., Albertsen P.C., Babaian R.J., et al. Prostate specific antigen best practice statement: 2009 update. J Urol 2009, 182:2232-2241.
6. Graham J., Baker M., Macbeth F., et al. Diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer: Summary of NICE guidance. BMJ 2008, 336:610-612. Guideline Development Group.
7. Heidenreich A., Bellmunt J., Bolla M., et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localized disease. Eur Urol 2011, 59:61-71.
8. Hricak H., Choyke P.L., Eberhardt S.C., et al. Imaging prostate cancer: A multidisciplinary perspective. Radiology 2007, 243:28-53.
9. Mirowitz S.A., Brown J.J., Heiken J.P. Evaluation of the prostate and prostatic carcinoma with gadolinium-enhanced endorectal coil MR imaging. Radiology 1993, 186:153-157.
10. Harisinghani M.G., Saini S., Slater G.J., et al. MR imaging of pelvic lymph nodes in primary pelvic carcinoma with ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide (Combidex): Preliminary observations. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997, 7:161-163.
11. Thoeny H.C., Triantafyllou M., Birkhaeuser F.D., et al. Combined ultrasmall superparamagnetic particles of iron oxide-enhanced and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging reliably detect pelvic lymph node metastases in normal-sized nodes of bladder and prostate cancer patients. Eur Urol 2009, 55:761-769.
12. Bloch B.N., Furman-Haran E., Helbich T.H., et al. Prostate cancer: Accurate determination of extracapsular extension with high-spatial-resolution dynamic contrast-enhanced and T2-weighted MR imaging-initial results. Radiology 2007, 245:176-185.
13. Bernstein M.R., Cangiano T., D'Amico A., et al. Endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging and clinicopathologic findings in T1c adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Urol Oncol 2000, 5:104-107.
14. Mullerad M., Hricak H., Kuroiwa K., et al. Comparison of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging, guided prostate biopsy and digital rectal examination in the preoperative anatomical localization of prostate cancer. J Urol 2005, 174:2158-2163.
15. Lee S.H., Park K.K., Choi K.H., et al. Is endorectal coil necessary for the staging of clinically localized prostate cancer?. Comparison of non-endorectal vs. endorectal MR imaging. World J Urol 2010, 28:667-672.
16. Tan J.S., Thng C.H., Tan P.H., et al. Local experience of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging of prostate with correlation to radical prostatectomy specimens. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2008, 37:40-43.
17. Zhang J.Q., Loughlin K.R., Zou K.H., et al. Role of endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging in treatment of patients with prostate cancer and in determining radical prostatectomy surgical margin status: Report of a single surgeon's practice. Urology 2007, 69:1134-1137.
18. Park B.K., Kim B., Kim C.K., et al. Comparison of phased-array 3.0-T and endorectal 1.5-T magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of local staging accuracy for prostate cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2007, 31:534-538.
19. Latchamsetty K.C., Borden L.S., Porter C.R., et al. Experience improves staging accuracy of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: What is the learning curve?. Can J Urol 2007, 14:3429-3434.
20. Futterer J.J., Engelbrecht M.R., Jager G.J., et al. Prostate cancer: Comparison of local staging accuracy of pelvic phased-array coil alone vs. integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Local staging accuracy of prostate cancer using endorectal coil MR imaging. Eur Radiol 2007, 17:1055-1065.
21. Chandra R.V., Heinze S., Dowling R., et al. Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging staging of prostate cancer. ANZ J Surg 2007, 77:860-865.
22. Brown J.A., Rodin D.M., Harisinghani M., et al. Impact of preoperative endorectal MRI stage classification on neurovascular bundle sparing aggressiveness and the radical prostatectomy positive margin rate. Urol Oncol 2009, 27:174-179.
23. Colleselli D., Schilling D., Lichy M.P., et al. Topographic sensitivity and specificity of endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection. Urol Int 2010, 84:388-394.
24. Seitz M., Shukla-Dave A., Bjartell A., et al. Functional magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2009, 55:801-814.
25. Turkbey B., Pinto P.A., Mani H., et al. Prostate cancer: Value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection-histopathologic correlation. Radiology 2010, 255:89-99.
26. Chabanova E., Balslev I., Logager V., et al. Prostate cancer: 1.5 T endo-coil dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and MR spectroscopy-correlation with prostate biopsy and prostatectomy histopathologic data. Eur J Radiol 2010 Aug 12, [Epub ahead of print].
27. Umbehr M., Bachmann L.M., Held U., et al. Combined magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2009, 55:575-590.
28. Jager G.J., Severens J.L., Thornbury J.R., et al. Prostate cancer staging: Should MR imaging be used?. A decision analytic approach. Radiology 2000, 215:445-451.
29. Lacy G.L., Soderdahl D.W., Hernandez J. Optimal cost-effective staging evaluations in prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep 2007, 8:190-196.
30. Wang L., Zhang J., Schwartz L.H., et al. Incremental value of multiplanar cross-referencing for prostate cancer staging with endorectal MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007, 188:99-104.
31. Mullerad M., Hricak H., Wang L., et al. Prostate cancer: Detection of extracapsular extension by genitourinary and general body radiologists at MR imaging. Radiology 2004, 232:140-146.