Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Getty, D. J.
Right arrow Articles by McNeil, B. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Getty, D. J.
Right arrow Articles by McNeil, B. J.

Radiology, Vol 204, 471-479, Copyright © 1997 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Prostate cancer: relative effects of demographic, clinical, histologic, and MR imaging variables on the accuracy of staging

DJ Getty, SE Seltzer, CM Tempany, RM Pickett, JA Swets and BJ McNeil
BBN Corporation, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.

PURPOSE: To determine the effects on the accuracy of staging prostate gland cancer of diagnostic prediction rules based on demographic, clinical, histologic, and magnetic resonance (MR) image variables. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 200 cases from four medical centers were evaluated by nine radiologists experienced in MR imaging. The accuracies of the four diagnostic variables (age, prostate specific antigen level, Gleason tumor grade, and MR imaging findings) were measured, both singly and combined in a particular sequence, by calculating the area index of the receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: The accuracy of staging with single variables (age, 0.58; prostate specific antigen level, 0.74; Gleason grade 0.73, MR image findings, 0.74) increased as the variables were optimally merged. The first two variables combined to yield an accuracy of 0.74; the first three combined to yield an accuracy of 0.81; and all four variables resulted in an accuracy of 0.86. In a clinically important subset of 69 cases for which antigen level and Gleason grade together were inconclusive for the purposes of staging, the addition of MR imaging findings resulted in an increase in accuracy from 0.55 to 0.73. CONCLUSION: Optimal merging of diagnostic test results yields an improvement in the accuracy of prostate cancer staging.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 RadiologyHome page
D. Goldberg-Zimring, B. Shalmon, K. H. Zou, H. Azhari, D. Nass, and A. Achiron
Assessment of Multiple Sclerosis Lesions with Spherical Harmonics: Comparison of MR Imaging and Pathologic Findings
Radiology, June 1, 2005; 235(3): 1036 - 1044.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
C. M. C. Tempany and B. J. McNeil
Advances in Biomedical Imaging
JAMA, February 7, 2001; 285(5): 562 - 567.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
G. J. Jager, J. L. Severens, J. R. Thornbury, J. J. M. C. H. de la Rosette, S. H. J. Ruijs, and J. O. Barentsz
Prostate Cancer Staging: Should MR Imaging Be Used?-A Decision Analytic Approach
Radiology, May 1, 2000; 215(2): 445 - 451.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1997 by the Radiological Society of North America.