Prostate cancer: Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging - Distinction of true-positive results from chance-detected lesions
ABSTRACT To retrospectively investigate size criteria for the identification of chance-detected lesions at endorectal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging of prostate cancer.
Approval of the committee on human research and written informed consent were obtained. This study was HIPAA compliant. Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging were performed with a 1.5-T MR imager in 48 men with a mean age of 59 years (age range, 47-75 years) prior to radical prostatectomy. Two independent readers recorded the size and location of all suspected peripheral zone tumor nodules on MR images alone and on images obtained with combined MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging. Nodules detected at MR imaging were classified as matched lesions if tumor was present in the same location at step-section histopathologic review. For all matched lesions, kappa values were calculated to examine agreement between measured and actual tumor size. Lesions that were overmeasured at MR imaging with a kappa value of less than 0.2 were considered chance-detected lesions.
At MR imaging, two of 27 and four of 35 matched lesions for readers 1 and 2, respectively, were chance-detected lesions. The corresponding numbers of lesions at combined MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging were one of 21 and one of 31, respectively. In all but two cases, the measured diameter of chance-detected lesions was more than twice that of the diameter at histopathologic analysis. By using this diameter threshold to distinguish true-positive results, the mean diameter of detected tumors at histopathologic analysis was 15 mm compared with 4 mm for both undetected and chance-detected tumors (P < .05).
To ensure uniformity in the comparison of scientific studies, peripheral zone tumors detected at MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging of the prostate that are in the same location as tumors detected at histopathologic review should be considered chance-detected lesions if the MR transverse diameter is more than twice the histopathologic transverse diameter.
- SourceAvailable from: Giuseppe Sasso
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "It could be concluded that the addition of MRS to MRI increases the overall accuracy of prostate cancer tumor volume measurement, although measurement variability limits consistent quantitative tumor volume estimation, particularly for small tumors. In a study by Hom et al. , overestimation of tumor volume was observed once again when a truepositive lesion is defined with MRI and MRS by size alone. Given the reported limitation of MRI and MRS to assess tumor volume, the authors concluded that the assumption that a technically successful dose escalation in spectroscopically suspicious locations implies improved clinical outcome must be viewed with caution . "
ABSTRACT: Prostatic neoplasms are not uniformly distributed within the prostate volume. With recent developments in three-dimensional intensity-modulated and image-guided radiation therapy, it is possible to treat different volumes within the prostate to different thresholds of doses. This approach has the potential to adapt the dose to the biologic aggressiveness of various clusters of tumor cells within the gland. The definition of tumor burden volume in prostate cancer can be facilitated by the use of magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS). The increasing sensitivity and specificity of MRS to the prostate is causing new interest in its potential role in the definition of target subvolumes at higher risk of failure following radical radiotherapy. Prostate MRS might also play a role as a noninvasive predictive factor for tumor response and treatment outcome. We review the use of MRS in radiation therapy for prostate cancer by evaluating its accuracy in the classification of aggressive cancer regions and target definition; its current role in the radiotherapy planning process, with special interest in technical issues behind the successful inclusion of MRS in clinical use; and available early experiences as a prognostic tool.Neoplasia (New York, N.Y.) 07/2007; 9(6):455-63. DOI:10.1593/neo.07277 · 5.40 Impact Factor
Article: Editorial comment
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: (11)C-choline positron emission tomography is an innovative imaging technique for prostate cancer. We assessed the sensitivity of positron emission tomography used together with computerized tomography for intraprostatic localization of primary prostate cancer on a nodule-by-nodule basis, and compared its performance with 12-core transrectal biopsy. In 43 patients with known prostate cancer who had received positron emission tomography/computerized tomography before initial biopsy, we assessed sensitivity of positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for localization of nodules 5 mm or greater (those theoretically large enough for visualization) using radical prostatectomy histopathology as the reference standard. Comparison with transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy was based on sextant assessment of all cancer foci following sextant-by-sextant matching and reconstruction. Sensitivity/specificity of positron emission tomography/computerized tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of extraprostatic extension was also assessed. Positron emission tomography/computerized tomography showed 83% sensitivity for localization of nodules 5 mm or greater. At logistic regression analysis only nodule size appeared to influence sensitivity. At sextant assessment positron emission tomography/computerized tomography had slightly better sensitivity than transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy (66% vs 61%, p = 0.434) but was less specific (84% vs 97%, p = 0.008). For assessment of extraprostatic extension, sensitivity of PET/CT was low in comparison with magnetic resonance imaging (22% vs 63%, p <0.001). Positron emission tomography/computerized tomography has good sensitivity for intraprostatic localization of primary prostate cancer nodules 5 mm or greater. Positron emission tomography/computerized tomography and transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy show similar sensitivity for localization of any cancer focus. Positron emission tomography/computerized tomography does not seem to have any role in extraprostatic extension detection. Studies of diagnostic accuracy (as opposed to tumor localization) are needed in patients with suspected prostate cancer to see whether positron emission tomography/computerized tomography could have a role in not selected patients.The Journal of Urology 10/2006; 176(3):954-60; discussion 960. DOI:10.1016/j.juro.2006.04.015 · 3.75 Impact Factor