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) All Versions of this Article: 2412051866v1 241/2/449    most recent 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 Fütterer, J. J. Articles by Barentsz, J. O. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Fütterer, J. J. Articles by Barentsz, J. O.

Prostate Cancer Localization with Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging and Proton MR Spectroscopic Imaging¹

¹ From the Departments of Radiology (J.J.F., S.W.T.P.J.H., T.W.J.S., J.V., H.J.H., P.V., A.H., J.O.B.), Pathology (C.A.H.), Urology (J.A.W.), and Medical Technology Assessment (P.F.M.K.), Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein zuid 10, NL 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Received November 15, 2005; revision requested January 5, 2006; revision received March 21; accepted May 2; final version accepted May 19. Supported by the Dutch Cancer Society. Address correspondence to J.J.F. (e-mail: J.Futterer{at}rad.umcn.nl).

Purpose: To prospectively determine the accuracies of T2-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, dynamic contrast material–enhanced MR imaging, and quantitative three-dimensional (3D) proton MR spectroscopic imaging of the entire prostate for prostate cancer localization, with whole-mount histopathologic section findings as the reference standard.

Materials and Methods: This study was approved by the institutional review board, and informed consent was obtained from all patients. Thirty-four consecutive men with a mean age of 60 years and a mean prostate-specific antigen level of 8 ng/mL were examined. The median biopsy Gleason score was 6. T2-weighted MR imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging, and 3D MR spectroscopic imaging were performed, and on the basis of the image data, two readers with different levels of experience recorded the location of the suspicious peripheral zone and central gland tumor nodules on each of 14 standardized regions of interest (ROIs) in the prostate. The degree of diagnostic confidence for each ROI was recorded on a five-point scale. Localization accuracy and ROI-based receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated.

Results: For both readers, areas under the ROC curve for T2-weighted MR, dynamic contrast-enhanced MR, and 3D MR spectroscopic imaging were 0.68, 0.91, and 0.80, respectively. Reader accuracy in tumor localization with dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging was significantly better than that with quantitative spectroscopic imaging (P < .01). Reader accuracy in tumor localization with both dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging and spectroscopic imaging was significantly better than that with T2-weighted imaging (P < .01).

Conclusion: Compared with use of T2-weighted MR imaging, use of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and 3D MR spectroscopic imaging facilitated significantly improved accuracy in prostate cancer localization.

© RSNA, 2006

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. Casciani, E. Polettini, E. Carmenini, I. Floriani, G. Masselli, L. Bertini, and G. F. Gualdi Endorectal and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI for Detection of Local Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2008; 190(5): 1187 - 1192. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y. Mazaheri, A. Shukla-Dave, H. Hricak, S. W. Fine, J. Zhang, G. Inurrigarro, C. S. Moskowitz, N. M. Ishill, V. E. Reuter, K. Touijer, et al. Prostate Cancer: Identification with Combined Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging and 3D 1H MR Spectroscopic Imaging--Correlation with Pathologic Findings Radiology, February 1, 2008; 246(2): 480 - 488. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. W. J. Scheenen, S. W. T. P. J. Heijmink, S. A. Roell, C. A. Hulsbergen Van de Kaa, B. C. Knipscheer, J. A. Witjes, J. O. Barentsz, and A. Heerschap Three-dimensional Proton MR Spectroscopy of Human Prostate at 3 T without Endorectal Coil: Feasibility Radiology, November 1, 2007; 245(2): 507 - 516. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Shukla-Dave, H. Hricak, C. Moskowitz, N. Ishill, O. Akin, K. Kuroiwa, J. Spector, M. Kumar, V. E. Reuter, J. A. Koutcher, et al. Detection of Prostate Cancer with MR Spectroscopic Imaging: An Expanded Paradigm Incorporating Polyamines Radiology, November 1, 2007; 245(2): 499 - 506. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				V. Kundra, P. M. Silverman, S. F. Matin, and H. Choi Imaging in Oncology from The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center: Diagnosis, Staging, and Surveillance of Prostate Cancer Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2007; 189(4): 830 - 844. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. W. T. P. J. Heijmink, J. J. Futterer, T. Hambrock, S. Takahashi, T. W. J. Scheenen, H. J. Huisman, C. A. Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa, B. C. Knipscheer, L. A. L. M. Kiemeney, J. A. Witjes, et al. Prostate Cancer: Body-Array versus Endorectal Coil MR Imaging at 3 T--Comparison of Image Quality, Localization, and Staging Performance Radiology, July 1, 2007; 244(1): 184 - 195. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]