Prostate cancer: Is inapparent tumor at endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging a favorable prognostic finding in patients who select active surveillance?

被引:36
|
作者
Cabrera, Alvin R. [1 ]
Coakley, Fergus V. [1 ]
Westphalen, Antonio C. [1 ]
Lu, Ying [1 ]
Zhao, Shoujun [1 ]
Shinohara, Katsuto [2 ]
Carroll, Peter R. [2 ]
Kurhanewicz, John [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Radiol, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[2] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Urol, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1148/radiol.2472070770
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose: To retrospectively determine whether inapparent tumor at endorectal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging is a favorable prognostic finding in prostate cancer patients who select active surveillance for management. Materials and Methods: Committee on Human Research approval was obtained and compliance with HIPAA regulations was observed, with waiver of requirement for written consent. Ninety-two men (mean age, 64 years; range, 43-85 years) were retrospectively identified who had biopsy-proved prostate cancer, who had undergone baseline endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging, and who had selected active surveillance for management. Their mean baseline serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was 5.5 ng/mL, and the median Gleason score was 6. Two readers with 10 and 3 years of experience independently reviewed all MR images and determined whether tumor was apparent on the basis of evaluation of established morphologic and metabolic findings. Another investigator compiled data about baseline clinical stage, biopsy findings, and serum PSA measurements. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the relationship between the clinical parameters and tumor apparency at MR imaging and the biochemical outcome. Results: At baseline MR imaging, readers 1 and 2 considered 54 and 26 patients, respectively, to have inapparent tumor (fair interobserver agreement; kappa = 0.30). During a mean follow-up of 4.8 years, 52 patients had a stable PSA level and 40 had an increasing PSA level. In multivariate analysis, no significant association was found between the baseline clinical stage, Gleason score, serum PSA level, or the presence of apparent tumor at endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging for either reader and the biochemical outcome (P>.05 for all). Conclusion: Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging findings of tumor apparency or inapparency in prostate cancer patients who select active surveillance for management do not appear to be of prognostic value.
引用
收藏
页码:444 / 450
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Prostate cancer tumor volume: Measurement with endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging
    Coakley, FV
    Kurhanewicz, J
    Lu, Y
    Jones, KD
    Swanson, MG
    Chang, SD
    Carroll, PR
    Hricak, H
    RADIOLOGY, 2002, 223 (01) : 91 - 97
  • [2] Prostate cancer tumor volume: Measurement by endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging
    Coakley, FV
    Kurhanewicz, J
    Lu, Y
    Jones, KD
    Swanson, MG
    Chang, SD
    RADIOLOGY, 2001, 221 : 585 - 585
  • [3] Endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging of prostate cancer: Histopathological determinants of tumor visibility
    Hom, JJ
    Coakley, FV
    Simko, JP
    Qayyum, A
    Carroll, P
    Kurhanewicz, J
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2005, 184 (04) : 62 - 62
  • [4] Role of endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer
    Costouros, NG
    Coakley, FV
    Qayyum, A
    Yeh, BM
    Joe, BN
    Kurhanewicz, J
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2005, 184 (04) : 62 - 62
  • [5] Prostate Cancer Managed with Active Surveillance: Role of Anatomic MR Imaging and MR Spectroscopic Imaging
    Fradet, Vincent
    Kurhanewicz, John
    Cowan, Janet E.
    Karl, Alexander
    Coakley, Fergus V.
    Shinohara, Katsuto
    Carroll, Peter R.
    RADIOLOGY, 2010, 256 (01) : 176 - 183
  • [6] Endorectal MR imaging and spectroscopic imaging of transition zone prostate cancer
    Eberhardt, SC
    Coakley, FV
    Schwartz, LH
    Zakian, KL
    Heinze, SB
    Hricak, H
    RADIOLOGY, 2001, 221 : 584 - 585
  • [7] Predicting prostate cancer with dynamic endorectal coil MR and proton spectroscopic MR imaging
    Portalez, D
    Malavaud, B
    Herigault, G
    Lhez, JM
    Elman, B
    Jonca, F
    Besse, J
    Pradere, M
    JOURNAL DE RADIOLOGIE, 2004, 85 (12): : 1999 - 2004
  • [8] Prostate cancer localization with endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging: Effect of clinical data on reader accuracy
    Dhingsa, R
    Qayyum, A
    Coakley, FV
    Lu, Y
    Jones, KD
    Swanson, MG
    Carroll, PR
    Hricak, H
    Kurhanewicz, J
    RADIOLOGY, 2004, 230 (01) : 215 - 220
  • [9] MR Imaging for Prostate Cancer Screening and Active Surveillance
    Druskin, Sasha C.
    Macura, Katarzyna J.
    RADIOLOGIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2018, 56 (02) : 251 - +
  • [10] Localization of prostate cancer by endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging: Effect of clinical data on reader accuracy
    Dhingsa, R
    Coakley, FV
    Qayyum, A
    Kurhanewicz, J
    Yeh, BM
    Carroll, PR
    RADIOLOGY, 2002, 225 : 629 - 629