The predictive value of endorectal 3 tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for extraprostatic extension in patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer

Journal of Urology

Volumn 190, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 1728-1734

  Somford, D M ^a,b   Hamoen, E H ^b   Futterer J J ^b   Van Basten, J P ^a   Hulsbergen Van De Kaa, C A ^b   Vreuls, W ^a   Van Oort, I M ^b   Vergunst, H ^a   Kiemeney, L A ^b   Barentsz, J O ^b   Witjes, J A ^b  

^a CANISIUS WILHELMINA HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^b RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Magnetic resonance imaging; Neoplasm staging; Predictive value of tests; Prostatic neoplasms; Risk

Indexed keywords

GADOLINIUM PENTETATE MEGLUMINE; GADOTERATE MEGLUMINE;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER RISK; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURGERY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING EQUIPMENT; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; EXTRAPROSTATIC EXTENSION; GLEASON SCORE; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; METASTASIS; MULTIPARAMETRIC NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RADIOLOGIST; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEMINAL VESICLE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SUSCEPTIBILITY WEIGHTED IMAGING; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY;

EID: 84888639544     PISSN: 00225347     EISSN: 15273792     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.021     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. McClure TD, Margolis DJ, Reiter RE et al: Use of MR imaging to determine preservation of the neurovascular bundles at robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Radiology 2012; 262: 874.
2. Hricak H, Wang L, Wei DC et al: The role of preoperative endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in the decision regarding whether to preserve or resect neurovascular bundles during radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer 2004; 100: 2655.
3. Masterson TA and Touijer K: The role of endorectal coil MRI in preoperative staging and decision-making for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. MAGMA 2008; 21: 371.
4. Grossfeld GD, Chang JJ, Broering JM et al: Under staging and under grading in a contemporary series of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: results from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor database. J Urol 2001; 165: 851.
5. Ward JF, Slezak JM, Blute ML et al: Radical prostatectomy for clinically advanced (cT3) prostate cancer since the advent of prostatespecific antigen testing: 15-year outcome. BJU Int 2005; 95: 751.
6. 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.
7. Bostwick DG: Staging prostate cancere1997: current methods and limitations. Eur Urol 1997; 32: 2.
8. Beyersdorff D, Taymoorian K, Knosel T et al: MRI of prostate cancer at 1.5 and 3.0 T: comparison of image quality in tumor detection and staging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 185: 1214.
9. Cornud F, Rouanne M, Beuvon F et al: Endorectal 3D T2-weighted 1mm-slice thickness MRI for prostate cancer staging at 1.5Tesla: should we reconsider the indirects signs of extracapsular extension according to the D'Amico tumor risk criteria? Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: e591.
10. Futterer JJ, Heijmink SW, Scheenen TW et al: Prostate cancer: local staging at 3-T endorectal MR imagingeearly experience. Radiology 2006; 238: 184.
11. Fütterer JJ, Engelbrecht MR, Jager GJ et al: Prostate cancer: comparison of local staging accuracy of pelvic phased-array coil alone versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Local staging accuracy of prostate cancer using endorectal coil MR imaging. Eur Radiol 2007; 17: 1055.
12. Heijmink SW, Fütterer JJ, Hambrock T et al: Prostate cancer: body-array versus endorectal coil MR imaging at 3 Tecomparison of image quality, localization, and staging performance. Radiology 2007; 244: 184.
13. Ruprecht O, Weisser P, Bodelle B et al: MRI of the prostate: interobserver agreement compared with histopathologic outcome after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 456.
14. Wang L, Zhang J, Schwartz LH et al: Incremental value of multiplanar cross-referencing for prostate cancer staging with endorectal MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 188: 99.
15. Jager GJ, Severens JL, Thornbury JR et al: Prostate cancer staging: should MR imaging be used? A decision analytic approach. Radiology 2000; 215: 445.
16. Spahn M, Briganti A, Capitanio U et al: Outcome predictors of radical prostatectomy followed by adjuvant androgen deprivation in patients with clinical high risk prostate cancer and pT3 surgical margin positive disease. J Urol 2012; 188: 84.
17. Chu H, Nie L, Cole SR et al: Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies accounting for disease prevalence: alternative parameterizations and model selection. Stat Med 2009; 28: 2384.
18. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al: Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998; 280: 969.
19. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al: ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 746.
20. Hong SK, Han BK, Lee ST et al: Prediction of Gleason score upgrading in low-risk prostate cancers diagnosed via multi (> or = 12)-core prostate biopsy. World J Urol 2009; 27: 271.
21. Tewari AK, Srivastava A, Sooriakumaran P et al: Pathological outcomes and strategies to achieve optimal cancer control during robotic radical prostatectomy in Asian-Indian men. Indian J Urol 2011; 27: 326.
22. Lavery HJ, Nabizada-Pace F, Carlucci JR et al: Nerve-sparing robotic prostatectomy in preoperatively high-risk patients is safe and efficacious. Urol Oncol 2012; 30: 26.
23. Yossepowitch O, Eggener SE, Bianco FJ Jr et al: Radical prostatectomy for clinically localized, high risk prostate cancer: critical analysis of risk assessment methods. J Urol 2007; 178: 493.
24. Gontero P, Joniau S and Van Poppel H: Radical prostatectomy for PSA> or =100 ng/ml prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2008; 54: 957.
25. Zhang J, Hricak H, Shukla-Dave A et al: Clinical stage T1c prostate cancer: evaluation with endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 2009; 253: 425.
26. Joniau S, Hsu CY, Lerut E et al: A pretreatment table for the prediction of final histopathology after radical prostatectomy in clinical unilateral T3a prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2007; 51: 388.
27. Pelzer AE, Colleselli D, Bektic J et al: Pathological features of Gleason score 6 prostate cancers in the low and intermediate range of prostatespecific antigen level: is there a difference? BJU Int 2008; 101: 822.
28. Nakanishi H, Troncoso P and Babaian RJ: Prediction of extraprostatic extension in men with biopsy Gleason score of 8 or greater. J Urol 2008; 180: 2441.
29. Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T et al: Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 2011; 261: 46.
30. Wang L, Hricak H, Kattan MW et al: Prediction of organ-confined prostate cancer: incremental value of MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging to staging nomograms. Radiology 2006; 238: 597.