Title |
Multiparametric MRI for Suspected Recurrent Prostate Cancer after HIFU:Is DCE still needed?
|
---|---|
Published in |
European Radiology, April 2018
|
DOI | 10.1007/s00330-018-5352-z |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Raïssa Lotte, Alexandre Lafourcade, Pierre Mozer, Pierre Conort, Eric Barret, Eva Comperat, Malek Ezziane, Paul-Hugo Jouve de Guibert, Sebastian Tavolaro, Lisa Belin, Franck Boudghene, Olivier Lucidarme, Raphaële Renard-Penna |
Abstract |
To assess the added value of the dynamic contrast-enhanced sequence (DCE) to combination T2-weighted imaging (T2w) + diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in detecting prostate cancer (PCa) recurrence after HIFU (high-intensity focused ultrasound). Forty-five males with clinical and biological suspected PCa recurrence were retrospectively selected. All underwent multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) before biopsies. Two readers independently assigned a Likert score of cancer likelihood on T2w + DWI + DCE and T2w + DWI images. Prostatic biopsies were taken as the gold standard. Recurrent PCa was identified at biopsy for 37 patients (82%). Areas under the receiver-operating curve of T2w + DWI and T2w + DWI + DCE imaging were not significantly different for both readers. Using a Likert score ≥ 3 for the PCa diagnosis threshold, sensitivity at the lobe level for the (1) senior and (2) junior reader for T2w +DWI +DCE sensitivity was (1) 0.97 and (2) 0.94 vs. (1) 0.94 and (2) 0.97 for T2w + DWI. Accuracy of mpMRI was not significantly improved by adding DCE to T2w + DWI. Sensitivity was high for T2w + DWI + DCE and T2w + DWI with no significant difference for either the junior or senior reader. • MpMRI has the capability to detect PCa recurrence in post-HIFU monitoring. • The sensitivity of T2w and DWI for detecting PCa recurrence was not improved by DCE. • Readers with different degrees of experience did not improve their performance with DCE. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | 20% |
Spain | 1 | 20% |
France | 1 | 20% |
Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Scientists | 2 | 40% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 40% |
Members of the public | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 4 | 13% |
Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 6% |
Other | 7 | 23% |
Unknown | 9 | 29% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 32% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
Sports and Recreations | 1 | 3% |
Other | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 15 | 48% |