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: 2471061982v1 247/1/141    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 Google Scholar Articles by McKenna, D. A. Articles by Kurhanewicz, J. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by McKenna, D. A. Articles by Kurhanewicz, J.

Prostate Cancer: Role of Pretreatment MR in Predicting Outcome after External-Beam Radiation Therapy—Initial Experience¹

¹ From the Departments of Radiology (D.A.M., F.V.C., A.C.W., Y.L., E.M.W., J.K.) and Radiation Oncology (B.P., M.R.), University of California, San Francisco, M-372, 505 Parnassus Ave, San Francisco, CA 94143-0628. Received November 22, 2006; revision requested January 23, 2007; revision received April 25; accepted May 29; final version accepted, September 7. Address correspondence to F.V.C. (e-mail: Fergus.Coakley{at}radiology.ucsf.edu).

Purpose: To retrospectively determine if pretreatment endorectal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging findings are predictive of outcome in patients who undergo external-beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

Materials and Methods: Committee on Human Research approval, with waiver of the requirement for informed consent, was obtained for this HIPAA-compliant study. Eighty men with biopsy-proved prostate cancer (mean age, 59 years; range, 47–75 years) who underwent endorectal MR imaging of the prostate prior to external-beam radiation therapy were retrospectively identified; details of baseline tumor characteristics, treatment, and outcome were recorded. Two experienced readers independently reviewed all MR imaging studies and recorded tumor T stage and the radial diameter of extracapsular extension (if present). Univariate and multivariate stepwise Cox regression analyses were used to investigate the relationship between baseline imaging and clinical predictive variables and the end point of metastatic failure.

Results: At MR imaging, readers 1 and 2, respectively, considered 50 and 60 patients to have T1 or T2 disease (ie, organ-confined disease) and 30 and 20 patients to have T3 disease. After a mean follow-up of 43 months, four patients developed metastases. Univariate Cox analysis revealed that baseline serum prostate-specific antigen level, presence of extracapsular extension at MR imaging (according to either reader), and degree of extracapsular extension (according to either reader) were all significantly (P < .05) related to the development of metastases. Multivariate Cox analysis revealed that the sole independent predictive variable was mean diameter of extracapsular extension (relative hazard ratio, 2.06; 95% confidence interval: 1.22, 3.48; P = .007). In particular, three of five patients with extracapsular extension of more than 5 mm at pretreatment MR imaging developed metastases 24, 43, and 63 months after therapy.

Conclusion: The presence and degree of extracapsular extension at MR imaging prior to external-beam radiation therapy are important predictors of posttreatment metastatic recurrence.

© RSNA, 2008