Title |
Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 Tesla to assess local recurrence following radical prostatectomy using T2-weighted and contrast-enhanced imaging
|
---|---|
Published in |
European Radiology, September 2008
|
DOI | 10.1007/s00330-008-1174-8 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Stefano Cirillo, Massimo Petracchini, Lorenza Scotti, Teresa Gallo, Annalisa Macera, Maria Cristina Bona, Cinzia Ortega, Pietro Gabriele, Daniele Regge |
Abstract |
To evaluate diagnostic performance of endorectal magnetic resonance (eMR) for diagnosing local recurrence of prostate cancer (PC) in patients with previous radical prostatectomy (RP) and to assess whether contrast-enhanced (CE)-eMR improved diagnostic accuracy in comparison to unenhanced study. Unenhanced eMR data of 72 male patients (mean of total PSA: 1.23 +/- 1.3 ng/ml) with previous RP were interpreted retrospectively and classified either as normal or suspicious for local recurrence. All eMR examinations were re-evaluated also on CE-eMR 4 months after the first reading. Images were acquired on a 1.5-T system. These data were compared to the standard of reference for local recurrence: prostatectomy bed biopsy results; choline positron emission tomography results; PSA reduction or increase after pelvic radiotherapy; PSA modification during active surveillance. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive positive value, negative predictive value and accuracy were 61.4%, 82.1%, 84.4%, 57.5% and 69.4% for unenhanced eMR and 84.1%, 89.3%, 92.5%, 78.1% and 86.1% for CE-eMR. A statistically significant difference was found between accuracy and sensitivity of the two evaluations (chi(2) = 5.33; p = 0.02 and chi(2) = 9.00; p = 0.0027). EMR had great accuracy for visualizing local recurrence of PC after RP. CE-eMR improved diagnostic performance in comparison with T2-weighted imaging alone. |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Korea, Republic of | 1 | 1% |
Spain | 1 | 1% |
Sweden | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 82 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 18 | 21% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 11% |
Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 9% |
Student > Master | 8 | 9% |
Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
Other | 17 | 20% |
Unknown | 18 | 21% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 47 | 55% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
Engineering | 2 | 2% |
Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 2% |
Other | 4 | 5% |
Unknown | 25 | 29% |