Reference Citation Analysis: Find an Article, Find a Category, Find a Journal, Find a Scholar

For: Kumar R, Jagannathan NR. Prebiopsy magnetic resonance studies for prostate cancer diagnosis. Int J Urol 2012;20:140-1. [PMID: 23088316 DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2012.03201.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2012] [Accepted: 09/19/2012] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]

For:	Kumar R, Jagannathan NR. Prebiopsy magnetic resonance studies for prostate cancer diagnosis. Int J Urol 2012;20:140-1. [PMID: 23088316 DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2012.03201.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2012] [Accepted: 09/19/2012] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]

Number

Cited by Other Article(s)

Borofsky S, George AK, Gaur S, Bernardo M, Greer MD, Mertan FV, Taffel M, Moreno V, Merino MJ, Wood BJ, Pinto PA, Choyke PL, Turkbey B. What Are We Missing? False-Negative Cancers at Multiparametric MR Imaging of the Prostate. Radiology 2017;286:186-195. [PMID: 29053402 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017152877] [Citation(s) in RCA: 166] [Impact Index Per Article: 23.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]

Abstract

Purpose To characterize clinically important prostate cancers missed at multiparametric (MP) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. Materials and Methods The local institutional review board approved this HIPAA-compliant retrospective single-center study, which included 100 consecutive patients who had undergone MP MR imaging and subsequent radical prostatectomy. A genitourinary pathologist blinded to MP MR findings outlined prostate cancers on whole-mount pathology slices. Two readers correlated mapped lesions with reports of prospectively read MP MR images. Readers were blinded to histopathology results during prospective reading. At histopathologic examination, 80 clinically unimportant lesions (<5 mm; Gleason score, 3+3) were excluded. The same two readers, who were not blinded to histopathologic findings, retrospectively reviewed cancers missed at MP MR imaging and assigned a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 score to better understand false-negative lesion characteristics. Descriptive statistics were used to define patient characteristics, including age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, PSA density, race, digital rectal examination results, and biopsy results before MR imaging. Student t test was used to determine any demographic differences between patients with false-negative MP MR imaging findings and those with correct prospective identification of all lesions. Results Of the 162 lesions, 136 (84%) were correctly identified with MP MR imaging. Size of eight lesions was underestimated. Among the 26 (16%) lesions missed at MP MR imaging, Gleason score was 3+4 in 17 (65%), 4+3 in one (4%), 4+4 in seven (27%), and 4+5 in one (4%). Retrospective PI-RADS version 2 scores were assigned (PI-RADS 1, n = 8; PI-RADS 2, n = 7; PI-RADS 3, n = 6; and PI-RADS 4, n = 5). On a per-patient basis, MP MR imaging depicted clinically important prostate cancer in 99 of 100 patients. At least one clinically important tumor was missed in 26 (26%) patients, and lesion size was underestimated in eight (8%). Conclusion Clinically important lesions can be missed or their size can be underestimated at MP MR imaging. Of missed lesions, 58% were not seen or were characterized as benign findings at second-look analysis. Recognition of the limitations of MP MR imaging is important, and new approaches to reduce this false-negative rate are needed. ^© RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Samuel Borofsky From the Molecular Imaging Program (S.B., S.G., M.B., M.D.G., F.V.M., P.L.C., B.T.), Urologic Oncology Branch (A.K.G.), and Laboratory of Pathology (V.M., M.J.M.), National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr, Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD 20892; Department of Radiology, George Washington University Hospital, Washington, DC (S.B., M.T., P.A.P.); and Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, and Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md (B.J.W.)
Arvin K George From the Molecular Imaging Program (S.B., S.G., M.B., M.D.G., F.V.M., P.L.C., B.T.), Urologic Oncology Branch (A.K.G.), and Laboratory of Pathology (V.M., M.J.M.), National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr, Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD 20892; Department of Radiology, George Washington University Hospital, Washington, DC (S.B., M.T., P.A.P.); and Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, and Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md (B.J.W.)
Sonia Gaur From the Molecular Imaging Program (S.B., S.G., M.B., M.D.G., F.V.M., P.L.C., B.T.), Urologic Oncology Branch (A.K.G.), and Laboratory of Pathology (V.M., M.J.M.), National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr, Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD 20892; Department of Radiology, George Washington University Hospital, Washington, DC (S.B., M.T., P.A.P.); and Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, and Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md (B.J.W.)
Marcelino Bernardo From the Molecular Imaging Program (S.B., S.G., M.B., M.D.G., F.V.M., P.L.C., B.T.), Urologic Oncology Branch (A.K.G.), and Laboratory of Pathology (V.M., M.J.M.), National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr, Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD 20892; Department of Radiology, George Washington University Hospital, Washington, DC (S.B., M.T., P.A.P.); and Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, and Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md (B.J.W.)
Matthew D Greer From the Molecular Imaging Program (S.B., S.G., M.B., M.D.G., F.V.M., P.L.C., B.T.), Urologic Oncology Branch (A.K.G.), and Laboratory of Pathology (V.M., M.J.M.), National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr, Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD 20892; Department of Radiology, George Washington University Hospital, Washington, DC (S.B., M.T., P.A.P.); and Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, and Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md (B.J.W.)
Francesca V Mertan From the Molecular Imaging Program (S.B., S.G., M.B., M.D.G., F.V.M., P.L.C., B.T.), Urologic Oncology Branch (A.K.G.), and Laboratory of Pathology (V.M., M.J.M.), National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr, Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD 20892; Department of Radiology, George Washington University Hospital, Washington, DC (S.B., M.T., P.A.P.); and Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, and Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md (B.J.W.)
Myles Taffel From the Molecular Imaging Program (S.B., S.G., M.B., M.D.G., F.V.M., P.L.C., B.T.), Urologic Oncology Branch (A.K.G.), and Laboratory of Pathology (V.M., M.J.M.), National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr, Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD 20892; Department of Radiology, George Washington University Hospital, Washington, DC (S.B., M.T., P.A.P.); and Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, and Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md (B.J.W.)
Vanesa Moreno From the Molecular Imaging Program (S.B., S.G., M.B., M.D.G., F.V.M., P.L.C., B.T.), Urologic Oncology Branch (A.K.G.), and Laboratory of Pathology (V.M., M.J.M.), National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr, Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD 20892; Department of Radiology, George Washington University Hospital, Washington, DC (S.B., M.T., P.A.P.); and Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, and Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md (B.J.W.)
Maria J Merino From the Molecular Imaging Program (S.B., S.G., M.B., M.D.G., F.V.M., P.L.C., B.T.), Urologic Oncology Branch (A.K.G.), and Laboratory of Pathology (V.M., M.J.M.), National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr, Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD 20892; Department of Radiology, George Washington University Hospital, Washington, DC (S.B., M.T., P.A.P.); and Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, and Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md (B.J.W.)
Bradford J Wood From the Molecular Imaging Program (S.B., S.G., M.B., M.D.G., F.V.M., P.L.C., B.T.), Urologic Oncology Branch (A.K.G.), and Laboratory of Pathology (V.M., M.J.M.), National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr, Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD 20892; Department of Radiology, George Washington University Hospital, Washington, DC (S.B., M.T., P.A.P.); and Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, and Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md (B.J.W.)
Peter A Pinto From the Molecular Imaging Program (S.B., S.G., M.B., M.D.G., F.V.M., P.L.C., B.T.), Urologic Oncology Branch (A.K.G.), and Laboratory of Pathology (V.M., M.J.M.), National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr, Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD 20892; Department of Radiology, George Washington University Hospital, Washington, DC (S.B., M.T., P.A.P.); and Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, and Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md (B.J.W.)
Peter L Choyke From the Molecular Imaging Program (S.B., S.G., M.B., M.D.G., F.V.M., P.L.C., B.T.), Urologic Oncology Branch (A.K.G.), and Laboratory of Pathology (V.M., M.J.M.), National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr, Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD 20892; Department of Radiology, George Washington University Hospital, Washington, DC (S.B., M.T., P.A.P.); and Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, and Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md (B.J.W.)
Baris Turkbey From the Molecular Imaging Program (S.B., S.G., M.B., M.D.G., F.V.M., P.L.C., B.T.), Urologic Oncology Branch (A.K.G.), and Laboratory of Pathology (V.M., M.J.M.), National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr, Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD 20892; Department of Radiology, George Washington University Hospital, Washington, DC (S.B., M.T., P.A.P.); and Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, and Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md (B.J.W.)

Collapse

Dwivedi DK, Kumar R, Bora GS, Thulkar S, Sharma S, Gupta SD, Jagannathan NR. Stratification of the aggressiveness of prostate cancer using pre-biopsy multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). NMR IN BIOMEDICINE 2016;29:232-238. [PMID: 26730884 DOI: 10.1002/nbm.3452] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/15/2014] [Revised: 11/03/2015] [Accepted: 11/03/2015] [Indexed: 06/05/2023]

Abstract

Risk stratification, based on the Gleason score (GS) of a prostate biopsy, is an important decision-making tool in prostate cancer management. As low-grade disease may not need active intervention, the ability to identify aggressive cancers on imaging could limit the need for prostate biopsies. We assessed the ability of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in pre-biopsy risk stratification of men with prostate cancer. One hundred and twenty men suspected to have prostate cancer underwent mpMRI (diffusion MRI and MR spectroscopic imaging) prior to biopsy. Twenty-six had cancer and were stratified into three groups based on GS: low grade (GS ≤ 6), intermediate grade (GS = 7) and high grade (GS ≥ 8). A total of 910 regions of interest (ROIs) from the peripheral zone (PZ, range 25-45) were analyzed from these 26 patients. The metabolite ratio [citrate/(choline + creatine)] and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of voxels were calculated for the PZ regions corresponding to the biopsy cores and compared with histology. The median metabolite ratios for low-grade, intermediate-grade and high-grade cancer were 0.29 (range: 0.16, 0.61), 0.17 (range: 0.13, 0.32) and 0.13 (range: 0.05, 0.23), respectively (p = 0.004). The corresponding mean ADCs (×10(-3) mm(2) /s) for low-grade, intermediate-grade and high-grade cancer were 0.99 ± 0.08, 0.86 ± 0.11 and 0.69 ± 0.12, respectively (p < 0.0001). The combined ADC and metabolite ratio model showed strong discriminatory ability to differentiate subjects with GS ≤ 6 from subjects with GS ≥ 7 with an area under the curve of 94%. These data indicate that pre-biopsy mpMRI may stratify PCa aggressiveness noninvasively. As the recent literature data suggest that men with GS ≤ 6 cancer may not need radical therapy, our data may help limit the need for biopsy and allow informed decision making for clinical intervention. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Collapse

Kitamura K, Muto S, Yokota I, Hoshimoto K, Kaminaga T, Noguchi T, Sugiura SI, Ide H, Yamaguchi R, Furui S, Horie S. Feasibility of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of cancer distribution: histopathological correlation with prostatectomy specimens. Prostate Int 2014;2:188-95. [PMID: 25599075 PMCID: PMC4286731 DOI: 10.12954/pi.14067] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/11/2014] [Accepted: 11/19/2014] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open

Jambor I, Kähkönen E, Taimen P, Merisaari H, Saunavaara J, Alanen K, Obsitnik B, Minn H, Lehotska V, Aronen HJ. Prebiopsy multiparametric 3T prostate MRI in patients with elevated PSA, normal digital rectal examination, and no previous biopsy. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014;41:1394-404. [PMID: 24956412 DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24682] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2014] [Accepted: 06/06/2014] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open

Muto S, Kaminaga T, Horiuchi A, Kitamura K, Saito K, Isotani S, Yamaguchi R, Ide H, Furui S, Horie S. Usefulness of proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy in predicting positive biopsy after high-intensity focused ultrasound for treatment of localized prostate cancer. Int J Urol 2014;21:776-80. [PMID: 24650235 DOI: 10.1111/iju.12442] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/08/2013] [Accepted: 02/11/2014] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the clinical effectiveness of proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy in predicting local recurrence or residual disease after high-intensity focused ultrasound for treatment of localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

The present study included patients with localized prostate cancer who underwent high-intensity focused ultrasound of whole-gland ablation as primary therapy. Clinicopathological variables including proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy, T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging, and prostate-specific antigen and its derivatives were analyzed to predict the positive prostate biopsy results using univariate and multivariate analyses. Furthermore, the presence of tumor in each of the 12 prostate sectors by T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy were evaluated and compared with prostate biopsy results in each of the 12 prostate sectors in order to evaluate the local cancer distribution in the prostate after high-intensity focused ultrasound.

RESULTS

Overall, we carried out 85 prostate biopsies in 52 patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the positive finding of proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy was the only statistically significant prognostic parameter of pathological tumor progression in patients after high-intensity focused ultrasound. Prostate biopsy cores were obtained from 952 prostate sectors of 52 patients and 85 prostate biopsies. Compared with T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging, proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (sensitivity 52.8%, specificity 97.4%, positive predictive value 44.2% and negative predictive value 98.1%, P < 0.001) has higher values to predict local tumor progression in prostate sectors after high-intensity focused ultrasound.

CONCLUSIONS

Proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy is a useful, non-invasive diagnostic modality that predicts local tumor progression in patients after high-intensity focused ultrasound, as well as local cancer distribution at each of the prostate sectors with pinpoint accuracy.

Collapse