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 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 Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cabrera, A. R. Articles by Kurhanewicz, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Cabrera, A. R. Articles by Kurhanewicz, J.

Prostate Cancer: Is Inapparent Tumor at Endorectal MR and MR Spectroscopic Imaging a Favorable Prognostic Finding in Patients Who Select Active Surveillance?¹

¹ From the Departments of Radiology (A.R.C., F.V.C., A.C.W., Y.L., S.Z., J.K.) and Urology (K.S., P.R.C.), University of California, San Francisco, Box 0628, M-372, 505 Parnassus Ave, San Francisco, CA 94143-0628. From the 2006 RSNA Annual Meeting. Received May 2, 2007; revision requested July 2; revision received August 8; accepted September 11; final version accepted October 4. A.C.W. supported by National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering T32 training grant 1 T32 EB001631. Supported by National Cancer Institute SPORE grant p50 c89520 and UCSF Quarterly Research Fellowship. Address correspondence to F.V.C. (e-mail: Fergus.Coakley{at}radiology.ucsf.edu).

Purpose: To retrospectively determine whether inapparent tumor at endorectal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging is a favorable prognostic finding in prostate cancer patients who select active surveillance for management.

Materials and Methods: Committee on Human Research approval was obtained and compliance with HIPAA regulations was observed, with waiver of requirement for written consent. Ninety-two men (mean age, 64 years; range, 43–85 years) were retrospectively identified who had biopsy-proved prostate cancer, who had undergone baseline endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging, and who had selected active surveillance for management. Their mean baseline serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was 5.5 ng/mL, and the median Gleason score was 6. Two readers with 10 and 3 years of experience independently reviewed all MR images and determined whether tumor was apparent on the basis of evaluation of established morphologic and metabolic findings. Another investigator compiled data about baseline clinical stage, biopsy findings, and serum PSA measurements. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the relationship between the clinical parameters and tumor apparency at MR imaging and the biochemical outcome.

Results: At baseline MR imaging, readers 1 and 2 considered 54 and 26 patients, respectively, to have inapparent tumor (fair interobserver agreement; = 0.30). During a mean follow-up of 4.8 years, 52 patients had a stable PSA level and 40 had an increasing PSA level. In multivariate analysis, no significant association was found between the baseline clinical stage, Gleason score, serum PSA level, or the presence of apparent tumor at endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging for either reader and the biochemical outcome (P > .05 for all).

Conclusion: Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging findings of tumor apparency or inapparency in prostate cancer patients who select active surveillance for management do not appear to be of prognostic value.

© RSNA, 2008