Prostate cancer: Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging - Distinction of true-positive results from chance-detected lesions

Department of Radiology, University of California, Box 0628, M-372, San Francisco, CA 94143-0628, USA.
Radiology (Impact Factor: 6.21). 02/2006; 238(1):192-9. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2381041675
Source: PubMed

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.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Approximately a third of men with localized prostate cancer who are treated with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) or radical prostatectomy (RP) develop biochemical failure (BF). Presumably, BF will progress to distant metastasis and prostate cancer-specific mortality in some patients over subsequent years. Accurate detection of recurrent disease is important because it allows for appropriate treatment selection (e.g., local vs systemic therapy) and early delivery of therapy (e.g., salvage EBRT), which affect patient outcome. In this article, we discuss the paradigm shift in imaging technology in the detection of recurrent prostate cancer. First, we discuss the commonly used morphological and anatomical imaging modalities and their role in the post-RP and post-EBRT settings of BF. Second, we discuss the accuracy of functional and molecular imaging techniques, many of which are under investigation. Further studies are needed to establish the role of imaging techniques for detection of cancer recurrence and clinical decision-making.
    Future Oncology 02/2014; 10(3):457-74. DOI:10.2217/fon.13.196 · 2.61 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To investigate the role of endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging in defining the contour of treatable intraprostatic tumor foci in prostate cancer, since targeted therapy requires accurate target volume definition. We retrospectively identified 20 patients with prostate cancer who underwent endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging prior to radical prostatectomy and subsequent creation of detailed histopathological tumor maps from whole-mount step sections. Two experienced radiologists independently reviewed all MR images and electronically contoured all suspected treatable (⩾0.5cm(3)) tumor foci. Deformable co-registration in MATLAB was used to calculate the margin of error between imaging and histopathological contours at both capsular and non-capsular surfaces and the treatment margin required to ensure at least 95% tumor coverage. Histopathology showed 17 treatable tumor foci in 16 patients, of which 8 were correctly identified by both readers and an additional 2 were correctly identified by reader 2. For all correctly identified lesions, both readers accurately identified that tumor contacted the prostatic capsule, with no error in contour identification. On the non-capsular border, the median distance between the imaging and histopathological contour was 1.4mm (range, 0-12). Expanding the contour by 5mm at the non-capsular margin included 95% of tumor volume not initially covered within the MR contour. Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging can be used to accurately contour treatable intraprostatic tumor foci; adequate tumor coverage is achieved by expanding the treatment contour at the non-capsular margin by 5mm.
    Radiotherapy and Oncology 01/2014; 110(2). DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2013.12.003 · 4.86 Impact Factor