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 Beyersdorff, D. Articles by Hamm, B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Beyersdorff, D. Articles by Hamm, B.

Patients with a History of Elevated Prostate-Specific Antigen Levels and Negative Transrectal US–guided Quadrant or Sextant Biopsy Results: Value of MR Imaging¹

¹ From the Departments of Radiology (D.B., M.T., T.F., B.H.) and Urology (B.W., S.L., S.A.L.), Charité, Humboldt-Universität, Schumannstrasse 20/21, 10117 Berlin, Germany. From the 2000 RSNA scientific assembly. Received September 19, 2001; revision requested November 5; revision received January 18, 2002; accepted March 12. Address correspondence to D.B. (e-mail: dirk.beyersdorff@charite.de).

PURPOSE: To determine the role of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging performed with a combined endorectal body phased-array coil for patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels or suspicious free-to-total PSA ratios in whom prior transrectal ultrasonographically (US) guided biopsy findings were negative for prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-four patients with PSA levels greater than 4 ng/mL or free-to-total PSA ratios lower than 15% but negative biopsy findings were examined with T1- and T2-weighted MR imaging at 1.5 T with a combined endorectal body phased-array coil. All patients underwent digital rectal examination (DRE) and transrectal US. Thirty-eight patients underwent repeat biopsy after MR imaging. The accuracy of MR imaging for detection of prostate cancer was assessed prospectively. Retrospectively, MR imaging findings were correlated with individual biopsy site findings. MR imaging and biopsy results were correlated by using a cross table to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV). Retrospective analysis results were evaluated with receiver operating characteristic analysis. A P value of less than .05 indicated significance (² test according to Pearson).

RESULTS: At prospective analysis, MR imaging had a sensitivity of 83% and a PPV of 50% for detection of prostate cancer; these values were 33% and 67%, respectively, for DRE and 33% and 57%, respectively, for transrectal US. At retrospective site-by-site analysis, MR imaging results did not correlate significantly with individual biopsy site findings (P = .126); sensitivity was 65% and PPV was 12%.

CONCLUSION: In this patient population, MR imaging has higher sensitivity for detection of prostate cancer than DRE or transrectal US.

© RSNA, 2002

Index terms: Magnetic resonance (MR), comparative studies • Prostate, biopsy, 844.1261 • Prostate neoplasms, 844.31, 844.32 • Prostate neoplasms, MR, 844.121411, 844.121416 • Prostate neoplasms, US, 844.12985, 844.12989

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. G. Costouros, F. V. Coakley, A. C. Westphalen, A. Qayyum, B. M. Yeh, B. N. Joe, and J. Kurhanewicz Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in Patients with an Elevated Prostate-Specific Antigen Level: Role of Endorectal MRI and MR Spectroscopic Imaging Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2007; 188(3): 812 - 816. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N M DEsouza, S A Reinsberg, E D Scurr, J M Brewster, and G S Payne Magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: the value of apparent diffusion coefficients for identifying malignant nodules Br. J. Radiol., February 1, 2007; 80(950): 90 - 95. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Graser, A. Heuck, B. Sommer, J. Massmann, J. Scheidler, M. Reiser, and U. Mueller-Lisse Per-Sextant Localization and Staging of Prostate Cancer: Correlation of Imaging Findings with Whole-Mount Step Section Histopathology Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2007; 188(1): 84 - 90. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G S Payne and M O Leach Applications of magnetic resonance spectroscopy in radiotherapy treatment planning Br. J. Radiol., September 1, 2006; 79(Special_Issue_1): S16 - S26. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Beyersdorff, K. Taymoorian, T. Knosel, D. Schnorr, R. Felix, B. Hamm, and H. Bruhn MRI of Prostate Cancer at 1.5 and 3.0 T: Comparison of Image Quality in Tumor Detection and Staging Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2005; 185(5): 1214 - 1220. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H Hricak MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging in the pre-treatment evaluation of prostate cancer Br. J. Radiol., October 1, 2005; 78(Special_Issue_2): S103 - S111. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Beyersdorff, A. Winkel, B. Hamm, S. Lenk, S. A. Loening, and M. Taupitz MR Imaging-guided Prostate Biopsy with a Closed MR Unit at 1.5 T: Initial Results Radiology, February 1, 2005; 234(2): 576 - 581. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. G. Claus, H. Hricak, and R. R. Hattery Pretreatment Evaluation of Prostate Cancer: Role of MR Imaging and 1H MR Spectroscopy RadioGraphics, October 1, 2004; 24(suppl_1): S167 - S180. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]