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 Dhingsa, R. Articles by Kurhanewicz, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Dhingsa, R. Articles by Kurhanewicz, J.

Prostate Cancer Localization with Endorectal MR Imaging and MR Spectroscopic Imaging: Effect of Clinical Data on Reader Accuracy¹

¹ From the Departments of Radiology (R.D., A.Q., F.V.C., J.K., M.G.S., Y.L.), Pathology (K.D.J.), and Urology (P.R.C.), University of California San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94143-0628; and Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York (H.H.). Received November 25, 2002; revision requested January 28, 2003; final revision received May 28; accepted June 12. Supported by NIH grant IRGICA76423–0IRI. Address correspondence to A.Q. (e-mail: aliya.qayyum@radiology.ucsf.edu)

PURPOSE: To determine the effect of digital rectal examination findings, sextant biopsy results, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels on reader accuracy in the localization of prostate cancer with endorectal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 37 patients (mean age, 57 years) with biopsy-proved prostate cancer. Transverse T1-weighted, transverse high-spatial-resolution, and coronal T2-weighted MR images and MR spectroscopic images were obtained. Two independent readers, unaware of clinical data, recorded the size and location of suspicious peripheral zone tumor nodules on a standardized diagram of the prostate. Readers also recorded their degree of diagnostic confidence for each nodule on a five-point scale. Both readers repeated this interpretation with knowledge of rectal examination findings, sextant biopsy results, and PSA level. Step-section histopathologic findings were the reference standard. Logistic regression analysis with generalized estimating equations was used to correlate tumor detection with clinical data, and alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic (AFROC) curve analysis was used to examine the overall effect of clinical data on all positive results.

RESULTS: Fifty-one peripheral zone tumor nodules were identified at histopathologic evaluation. Logistic regression analysis showed awareness of clinical data significantly improved tumor detection rate (P < .02) from 15 to 19 nodules for reader 1 and from 13 to 19 nodules for reader 2 (27%–37% overall) by using both size and location criteria. AFROC analysis showed no significant change in overall reader performance because there was an associated increase in the number of false-positive findings with awareness of clinical data, from 11 to 21 for reader 1 and from 16 to 25 for reader 2.

CONCLUSION: Awareness of clinical data significantly improves reader detection of prostate cancer nodules with endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging, but there is no overall change in reader accuracy, because of an associated increase in false-positive findings. A stricter definition of a true-positive result is associated with reduced sensitivity for prostate cancer nodule detection.

© RSNA, 2004

Index terms: Diagnostic radiology, observer performance • Magnetic resonance (MR), spectroscopy • Prostate neoplasms, 844.32 • Prostate neoplasms, MR, 844.121411, 844.12145

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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]

				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]

				J. J. Futterer, S. W. T. P. J. Heijmink, T. W. J. Scheenen, J. Veltman, H. J. Huisman, P. Vos, C. A. H.-V. de Kaa, J. A. Witjes, P. F. M. Krabbe, A. Heerschap, et al. Prostate Cancer Localization with Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging and Proton MR Spectroscopic Imaging Radiology, November 1, 2006; 241(2): 449 - 458. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Li, K. Sugimura, Y. Kaji, Y. Kitamura, M. Fujii, I. Hara, and M. Tachibana Conventional MRI capabilities in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in the transition zone. Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2006; 186(3): 729 - 742. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. J. Hom, F. V. Coakley, J. P. Simko, A. Qayyum, Y. Lu, L. Schmitt, P. R. Carroll, and J. Kurhanewicz Prostate Cancer: Endorectal MR Imaging and MR Spectroscopic Imaging--Distinction of True-Positive Results from Chance-detected Lesions Radiology, January 1, 2006; 238(1): 192 - 199. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. J. Futterer, M. R. Engelbrecht, H. J. Huisman, G. J. Jager, C. A. Hulsbergen-van De Kaa, J. A. Witjes, and J. O. Barentsz Staging Prostate Cancer with Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Endorectal MR Imaging prior to Radical Prostatectomy: Experienced versus Less Experienced Readers Radiology, November 1, 2005; 237(2): 541 - 549. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. I. Scher, M. J. Morris, W. K. Kelly, L. H. Schwartz, and G. Heller Prostate Cancer Clinical Trial End Points: "RECIST"ing a Step Backwards Clin. Cancer Res., July 15, 2005; 11(14): 5223 - 5232. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]