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
  • [31] Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer Expanding the Role of MR Imaging and the Use of PRECISE Criteria
    Englman, Cameron
    Barrett, Tristan
    Moore, Caroline M.
    Giganti, Francesco
    RADIOLOGIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2024, 62 (01) : 69 - 92
  • [32] ENDORECTAL COIL MR-IMAGING FEATURES OF ADVANCED PROSTATE-CANCER
    TEMPANY, CM
    PICKETT, R
    SEITZER, SE
    GETTY, DJ
    SWETS, JA
    MCNEIL, BJ
    RADIOLOGY, 1995, 197 : 495 - 495
  • [33] VALUE OF ENDORECTAL MR-IMAGING FOR DIAGNOSIS OF RECURRENT PROSTATE-CANCER
    KRESTIN, GP
    BOENI, RAH
    TRINKLER, F
    PESTALOZZI, D
    RADIOLOGY, 1995, 197 : 253 - 253
  • [34] PROSTATE-CANCER - LOCAL STAGING WITH ENDORECTAL SURFACE COIL MR IMAGING
    SCHNALL, MD
    IMAI, Y
    TOMASZEWSKI, J
    POLLACK, HM
    LENKINSKI, RE
    KRESSEL, HY
    RADIOLOGY, 1991, 178 (03) : 797 - 802
  • [35] Endorectal coil MR imaging for staging prostate cancer: Evaluation of interreader variability
    Tempany, CM
    Gatsonis, C
    Herman, LM
    Caudry, DJ
    McNeil, BJ
    RADIOLOGY, 1996, 201 : 675 - 675
  • [36] Locally Recurrent Prostate Cancer after External Beam Radiation Therapy: Diagnostic Performance of 1.5-T Endorectal MR Imaging and MR Spectroscopic Imaging for Detection
    Westphalen, Antonio C.
    Coakley, Fergus V.
    Roach, Mack, III
    McCulloch, Charles E.
    Kurhanewicz, John
    RADIOLOGY, 2010, 256 (02) : 485 - 492
  • [37] Post-Processing Correction of the Endorectal Coil Reception Effects in MR Spectroscopic Imaging of the Prostate
    Noworolski, Susan M.
    Reed, Galen D.
    Kurhanewicz, John
    Vigneron, Daniel B.
    JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2010, 32 (03) : 654 - 662
  • [38] Diffusion-weighted Endorectal MR Imaging at 3 T for Prostate Cancer: Tumor Detection and Assessment of Aggressiveness
    Vargas, Hebert Alberto
    Akin, Oguz
    Franiel, Tobias
    Mazaheri, Yousef
    Zheng, Junting
    Moskowitz, Chaya
    Udo, Kazuma
    Eastham, James
    Hricak, Hedvig
    RADIOLOGY, 2011, 259 (03) : 775 - 784
  • [39] Hormonal ablation of prostatic cancer: Effects on prostate morphology, tumor detection, and staging by endorectal coil MR imaging
    Chen, M
    Hricak, H
    Kalbhen, CL
    Kurhanewicz, J
    Vigneron, DB
    Weiss, JM
    Carroll, PR
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1996, 166 (05) : 1157 - 1163
  • [40] Prostate cancer localization with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging
    Fuetterer, Jurgen J.
    Heijmink, Stijn W. T. P. J.
    Scheenen, Tom W. J.
    Veltman, Jeroen
    Huisman, Henkjan J.
    Vos, Pieter
    Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa, Christina A.
    Witjes, J. Alfred
    Krabbe, Paul F. M.
    Heerschap, Arend
    Barentsz, Jelle O.
    RADIOLOGY, 2006, 241 (02) : 449 - 458