HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Fütterer, J. J. Articles by Barentsz, J. O. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Fütterer, J. J. Articles by Barentsz, J. O.

Staging Prostate Cancer with Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Endorectal MR Imaging prior to Radical Prostatectomy: Experienced versus Less Experienced Readers¹

¹ From the Departments of Radiology (J.J.F., M.R.E., H.J.H., G.J.J., J.O.B.), Pathology (C.A.H.), and Urology (J.A.W.), University Medical Center Nijmegen, Geert Grooteplein zuid 10, NL 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Received October 7, 2004; revision requested December 13; revision received January 3, 2005; accepted February 2. Supported by a grant from the Dutch Cancer Society. Address correspondence to J.J.F. (e-mail: J.Futterer{at}rad.umcn.nl).

PURPOSE: To prospectively determine the accuracy of experienced and less experienced readers in the interpretation of combined T2-weighted fast spin-echo (SE) magnetic resonance (MR) images and dynamic contrast material–enhanced MR images compared with T2-weighted fast SE alone, with respect to differentiation of stage T2 versus stage T3 prostate carcinoma, with histologic analysis serving as the reference standard.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained, and 124 consecutive men (age range, 42–74 years; median age, 63 years) with biopsy-proved prostate cancer underwent MR imaging and were candidates for radical prostatectomy. T2-weighted fast SE MR images and multisection dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images with a 2-second time resolution for the whole prostate were obtained. The T2-weighted and fused color-coded parametric dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images with T2-weighted images were evaluated prospectively and scored with regard to local extent by one experienced reader and evaluated retrospectively by two less experienced readers working in consensus by using a five-point scale; images with a score greater than or equal to four were considered indicative of T3 disease. Results were correlated with whole-mount section histopathologic findings, and receiver operating characteristics analysis was performed.

RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were excluded because of positive findings in the lymph nodes (n = 16), preoperative biopsy-proved seminal vesicle invasion (n = 5), and an absent dynamic dataset (n = 4). Ninety-nine patients were included in this study. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of MR staging performance in prostate cancer with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging was 69% (24 of 35 patients), 97% (62 of 64 patients), and 87% (86 of 99 patients), respectively, for the experienced reader. This difference was not significant (P = .48) when results were compared with results from the T2-weighted images. Staging performance for the less experienced readers with parametric dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging, however, resulted in significant improvement of the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (A_z) compared with T2-weighted MR imaging alone (A_z = .66 and .82, respectively; P = .01).

CONCLUSION: The use of multisection dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in staging prostate cancer showed significant improvement in staging performance for the less experienced readers but had no benefit for the experienced reader.

© RSNA, 2005

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. K. Kim, B. K. Park, H. M. Lee, S. S. Kim, and E. Kim MRI Techniques for Prediction of Local Tumor Progression After High-Intensity Focused Ultrasonic Ablation of Prostate Cancer Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2008; 190(5): 1180 - 1186. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Casciani, E. Polettini, E. Carmenini, I. Floriani, G. Masselli, L. Bertini, and G. F. Gualdi Endorectal and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI for Detection of Local Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2008; 190(5): 1187 - 1192. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. A. McKenna, F. V. Coakley, A. C. Westphalen, S. Zhao, Y. Lu, E. M. Webb, B. Pickett, M. Roach III, and J. Kurhanewicz Prostate Cancer: Role of Pretreatment MR in Predicting Outcome after External-Beam Radiation Therapy--Initial Experience Radiology, April 1, 2008; 247(1): 141 - 146. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				V. Kundra, P. M. Silverman, S. F. Matin, and H. Choi Imaging in Oncology from The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center: Diagnosis, Staging, and Surveillance of Prostate Cancer Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2007; 189(4): 830 - 844. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. N. Bloch, E. Furman-Haran, T. H. Helbich, R. E. Lenkinski, H. Degani, C. Kratzik, M. Susani, A. Haitel, S. Jaromi, L. Ngo, et al. Prostate Cancer: Accurate Determination of Extracapsular Extension with High-Spatial-Resolution Dynamic Contrast-enhanced and T2-weighted MR Imaging Initial Results Radiology, October 1, 2007; 245(1): 176 - 185. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. W. T. P. J. Heijmink, J. J. Futterer, T. Hambrock, S. Takahashi, T. W. J. Scheenen, H. J. Huisman, C. A. Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa, B. C. Knipscheer, L. A. L. M. Kiemeney, J. A. Witjes, et al. Prostate Cancer: Body-Array versus Endorectal Coil MR Imaging at 3 T--Comparison of Image Quality, Localization, and Staging Performance Radiology, July 1, 2007; 244(1): 184 - 195. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Kawashima and B. F. King Jr Invited Commentary RadioGraphics, January 1, 2007; 27(1): 75 - 77. [Full Text] [PDF]