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
  • [21] Prostate depiction at endorectal MR spectroscopic imaging: Investigation of a standardized evaluation system
    Jung, JA
    Coakley, FV
    Vigneron, DB
    Swanson, MG
    Qayyum, A
    Weinberg, V
    Jones, KD
    Carroll, PR
    Kurhanewicz, J
    RADIOLOGY, 2004, 233 (03) : 701 - 708
  • [22] Prostate cancer: Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging - Distinction of true-positive results from chance-detected lesions
    Hom, JJ
    Coakley, FV
    Simko, JP
    Qayyum, A
    Lu, Y
    Schmitt, L
    Carroll, PR
    Kurhanewicz, J
    RADIOLOGY, 2006, 238 (01) : 192 - 199
  • [23] Role of endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging in defining treatable intraprostatic tumor foci in prostate cancer: Quantitative analysis of imaging contour compared to whole-mount histopathology
    Anwar, Mekhail
    Westphalen, Antonio C.
    Jung, Adam J.
    Noworolski, Susan M.
    Simko, Jeffry P.
    Kurhanewicz, John
    Roach, Mack, III
    Carroll, Peter R.
    Coakley, Fergus V.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2014, 110 (02) : 303 - 308
  • [24] Endorectal MR spectroscopic imaging of locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiation therapy: Preliminary experience
    Teh, HS
    Coakley, FV
    Qayyum, A
    Swanson, MG
    Lu, Y
    Shinohara, K
    Roach, M
    Kurhanewicz, J
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2004, 182 (04) : 68 - 68
  • [25] Local staging of prostate cancer with endorectal MR imaging: Correlation with histopathology
    Jager, GJ
    Ruijter, ETG
    vandeKaa, CA
    delaRosette, JJMCH
    Oosterhof, GON
    Thornbury, JR
    Barentsz, JO
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1996, 166 (04) : 845 - 852
  • [26] Developments in proton MR spectroscopic imaging of prostate cancer
    Angeliki Stamatelatou
    Tom W. J. Scheenen
    Arend Heerschap
    Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine, 2022, 35 : 645 - 665
  • [27] Developments in proton MR spectroscopic imaging of prostate cancer
    Stamatelatou, Angeliki
    Scheenen, Tom W. J.
    Heerschap, Arend
    MAGNETIC RESONANCE MATERIALS IN PHYSICS BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE, 2022, 35 (04) : 645 - 665
  • [28] Multidimensional MR spectroscopic imaging of prostate cancer in vivo
    Thomas, M. Albert
    Nagarajan, Rajakumar
    Huda, Amir
    Margolis, Daniel
    Sarma, Manoj K.
    Sheng, Ke
    Reiter, Robert E.
    Raman, Steven S.
    NMR IN BIOMEDICINE, 2014, 27 (01) : 53 - 66
  • [29] Endorectal MR imaging of prostate cancer: Evaluation of tumor capsular contact length as a sign of extracapsular extension
    Mendez, Gustavo
    Foste, Bryan R.
    Li, Xin
    Shannon, Jackilen
    Garzotto, Mark
    Arnling, Christopher L.
    Coakley, Fergus V.
    CLINICAL IMAGING, 2018, 50 : 280 - 285
  • [30] Localising Prostate Cancer: Comparison of Endorectal Magnetic Resonance (MR) Imaging and 3D-MR Spectroscopic Imaging with Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy
    Gbenou, Maximilien C. Goris
    Peltier, Alexandre
    Addla, Sanjai K.
    Lemort, Marc
    Bollens, Renaud
    Larsimont, Denis
    Roumeguere, Thierry
    Schulman, Claude C.
    van Velthoven, Roland
    UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2012, 88 (01) : 12 - 17