» Articles » PMID: 7554732

Optimization of Prostate Carcinoma Staging: Comparison of Imaging and Clinical Methods

Overview
Journal Clin Radiol
Specialty Radiology
Date 1995 Sep 1
PMID 7554732
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: The diagnostic value of endorectal coil MRI, body coil MRI, transrectal ultrasound, digital rectal examination and PSA levels were prospectively analysed in order to define the most accurate preoperative staging method.

Methods: 33 patients with prostate carcinoma, who underwent subsequent prostatectomy, were enrolled in the study and examined on a 1.5T system using the body coil as well as the endorectal surface coil before and after the administration of contrast material. The results were compared to digital rectal examination, prostate specific antigen levels and endorectal ultrasound.

Results: Staging accuracy of endorectal coil MRI was 87.9% with a sensitivity of 88.9% and specificity of 86.7%. For body coil MRI, the staging accuracy was 75.7%, the sensitivity 66.7% and the specificity 87.9%, for transrectal ultrasound 69.6%, 41.7% and 100% and for the digital rectal examination 56.6%, 33.3% and 100%, respectively. Prediction was improved by combining results of endorectal coil MRI with PSA values.

Conclusion: Endorectal ultrasound and digital rectal examination both had a tendency to underestimate the extent of the lesion. Endorectal coil MRI proved to be the best preoperative staging method. In combination with PSA values, diagnostic accuracy could be further improved. Therefore, local staging of prostate cancer could be based on these two parameters alone.

Citing Articles

Endorectal coil MRI and MR-spectroscopic imaging in patients with elevated serum prostate specific antigen with negative trus transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy.

Ganie F, Wani M, Shaheen F, Wani M, Ganie S, Mir M Urol Ann. 2013; 5(3):172-8.

PMID: 24049380 PMC: 3764898. DOI: 10.4103/0974-7796.115741.


Is it time to consider a role for MRI before prostate biopsy?.

Ahmed H, Kirkham A, Arya M, Illing R, Freeman A, Allen C Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2009; 6(4):197-206.

PMID: 19333226 DOI: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2009.18.


Prostate cancer: sextant localization at MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging before prostatectomy--results of ACRIN prospective multi-institutional clinicopathologic study.

Weinreb J, Blume J, Coakley F, Wheeler T, Cormack J, Sotto C Radiology. 2009; 251(1):122-33.

PMID: 19332850 PMC: 2663583. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2511080409.


The role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in prostate cancer imaging and staging at 1.5 and 3 Tesla: the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) approach.

Bloch B, Lenkinski R, Rofsky N Cancer Biomark. 2008; 4(4-5):251-62.

PMID: 18957714 PMC: 2739836. DOI: 10.3233/cbm-2008-44-507.


Pretreatment endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging features of prostate cancer as predictors of response to external beam radiotherapy.

Joseph T, McKenna D, Westphalen A, Coakley F, Zhao S, Lu Y Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008; 73(3):665-71.

PMID: 18760545 PMC: 2737354. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.04.056.