Prospective analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of digital rectal examination and magnetic resonance imaging for T staging of prostate cancer

被引:1
|
作者
Zhu, Junming [1 ,2 ]
Wu, Xiaohui [1 ,2 ]
Xue, Yuting [1 ,2 ]
Li, Xiaodong [1 ,2 ]
Zheng, Qingshui [1 ,2 ]
Xue, Xueyi [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Huang, Zhiyang [4 ,7 ]
Chen, Shaohao [1 ,2 ,5 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Fujian Med Univ, Affiliated Hosp 1, Urol Res Inst, Dept Urol, Fuzhou, Peoples R China
[2] Fujian Med Univ, Affiliated Hosp 1, Natl Reg Med Ctr, Dept Urol, Binhai Campus, Fuzhou, Peoples R China
[3] Fujian Med Univ, Affiliated Hosp 1, Fujian Key Lab Precis Med Canc, Fuzhou, Peoples R China
[4] Fujian Med Univ, Hosp Quanzhou 1, Dept Urol Surg, Quanzhou 362000, Fujian, Peoples R China
[5] Fujian Med Univ, Affiliated Hosp 1, Urol Res Inst, Dept Urol, Fuzhou 350005, Peoples R China
[6] Fujian Med Univ, Affiliated Hosp 1, Natl Reg Med Ctr, Dept Urol, Fuzhou 350212, Binhai Campus, Peoples R China
[7] Fujian Med Univ, Quanzhou First Hosp, Dept Urol, Quanzhou 362 000, Peoples R China
关键词
Diagnostic accuracy; Digital rectal examination; MRI; Prostate cancer; T staging; POPULATION; DENSITY; DISEASE; CARE; MRI;
D O I
10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_176_23
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background: Accurate staging of prostate cancer (PCa) is the basis for the risk stratification to select targeted treatment. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy rates of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and digital rectal examination (DRE) for preoperative T staging of potentially resectable PCa. Methods: From March 2021 to March 2022, patients with PCa with T staging by prostate biopsy were included. All examinations used postoperative histopathologic T staging as the reference standard. All patients underwent DRE and MRI before the puncture. Two blinded urologists and radiologists independently evaluated DRE and MRI, respectively. Before the examination, patients were then divided into early- (T1, T2) and late-(T3, T4) stage cancer. Analysis of a paired sample sign test was performed to determine differences between DRE and MRI. Results: A total of 136 study participants with PCa were evaluated histopathologically, of whom 71% (97/136) and 29% (39/136) were at the early- and late-stage cancer, respectively. MRI had a significantly higher accuracy (91.9% vs. 76.5%, P < 0.001) compared with DRE. Further, MRI showed a higher sensitivity than DRE to diagnose early PCa (92.8% vs. 74.2%; P < 0.001). However, the specificity was not significantly different between them (89.7% vs. 82.1%; P = 0.375). Area under the curve (receiver operating curve) values were calculated as 0.78 +/- 0.038 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.86), 0.91 +/- 0.028 (95% CI, 0.86-0.97), and 0.872 +/- 0.028 (95% CI, 0.80-0.92) for DRE-, MRI-, MRI + DRE-based PCa predictions, respectively. The prediction performance of MRI was better than that of DRE (DeLong test, z = 3.632, P = 0.0003) and MRI + DRE (DeLong test, z = 3.715, P = 0.0002). Conclusion: For resectable PCa, the diagnostic potential of MRI in assessing the T stage was higher than that of DRE. However, DRE is still valuable, especially for patients with locally advanced PCa.
引用
收藏
页码:1024 / 1030
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Diagnostic accuracy of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in predicting curative resection of rectal cancer: prospective observational study
    Brown, G.
    Daniels, I. R.
    Heald, R. J.
    Quirke, P.
    Blomqvist, L.
    Sebag-Montefiore, D.
    Moran, B. J.
    Holm, T.
    Strassbourg, J.
    Peppercorn, P. D.
    Fisher, S. E.
    Mason, B.
    BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2006, 333 (7572): : 779 - 782
  • [32] Comparison of digital rectal examination, transrectal ultrasonography, and multicoil magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative evaluation of prostate cancer
    SanchezChapado, M
    Angulo, JC
    Ibarburen, C
    Aguado, F
    Ruiz, A
    Viano, J
    GarciaSegura, JM
    GonzalezEsteban, J
    RodriguezVallejo, JM
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 1997, 32 (02) : 140 - 149
  • [33] Comparison of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging, guided prostate biopsy and digital rectal examination in the preoperative anatomical localization of prostate cancer
    Mullerad, M
    Hricak, H
    Kuroiwa, K
    Pucar, D
    Chen, HN
    Kattan, MW
    Scardino, PT
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2005, 174 (06): : 2158 - 2163
  • [34] Accuracy of MR imaging for staging prostate cancer: A diagnostic meta-analysis
    Langlotz, CP
    Sonnad, SS
    Schwartz, JS
    RADIOLOGY, 1996, 201 : 677 - 677
  • [35] The accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer staging: a single-institution experience
    Oon, S. F.
    Power, S. P.
    Kelly, J. S.
    McDermott, V.
    Ryan, P.
    Ryan, P. C.
    IRISH JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2015, 184 (02) : 313 - 317
  • [36] The accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer staging: a single-institution experience
    S. F. Oon
    S. P. Power
    J. S. Kelly
    V. McDermott
    P. Ryan
    P. C. Ryan
    Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -), 2015, 184 : 313 - 317
  • [37] The Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Imaging and Staging
    Lenkinski, Robert E.
    2011 8TH IEEE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON BIOMEDICAL IMAGING: FROM NANO TO MACRO, 2011, : 2109 - 2112
  • [38] The effect of anti-spasmodic administration on the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging staging of rectal cancer
    Taylor, Anna
    Wilkins, Simon
    Gelber, Nicholas
    Wang, Wei Chun
    Oliva, Karen
    Yap, Raymond
    McMurrick, Paul
    Ranchod, Pravin
    ANZ JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2023, 93 (06) : 1613 - 1619
  • [39] Accuracy of Baseline Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Staging Rectal Cancer Patients Proceeding Directly to Surgery
    Milanzi, Elasma
    Pelly, Rachel M.
    Hayes, Ian P.
    Gibbs, Peter
    Faragher, Ian
    Reece, Jeanette C.
    JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2024,
  • [40] Role of pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging in staging of prostate cancer specifically in patients diagnosed with clinically locally advanced tumours by digital rectal examination
    Evanguelos Xylinas
    David R. Yates
    Raphaële Renard-Penna
    Elise Seringe
    Jean-Claude Bousquet
    Eva Comperat
    Marc-Olivier Bitker
    Philippe Grenier
    Morgan Rouprêt
    World Journal of Urology, 2013, 31 : 881 - 886