MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF PROSTATE CANCER


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

In the Urological Clinic of MSMSU n.a. Al Evdokimov based on City Clinical Hospital № 50, a retrospective evaluation of medical records of360patients after radical prostatectomy was conducted. Comparison of preoperative protocols of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of pelvic organs with the results of histological examination of surgical specimens was preformed. A calculation of sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy of the pelvic MRI in patients with prostate cancer on two separate characteristics was conducted: extracapsular invasion (Ed), and seminal vesicle invasion by the tumor. Pelvic MRI has registered only 19.1 % of cases of histologically confirmed Ed, which proves the low sensitivity of the method in relation to the prognosis of identifying locally advanced prostate cancer. The specificity of MRI in the preoperative diagnosis of Ed was 98.5%. The sensitivity of MRI for the detection of tumor invasion into the seminal vesicles were also low - 30.6%, with specificity of 93.9%. The overall accuracy of the use of MRI in determining the presence of prostate cancer Ed may be recognized as an acceptable - 65%, and for the determination of seminal vesicle invasion can be assessed as high - 85.3%. We believe that the pelvic MRI with contrast enhancement at the stage of preoperative preparation it is advisable to carry out in all patients with prostate cancer.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

P. L Rasner

SBEI НРБ MSMSU n.a. A.I. Evdokimov of RMPH; CCH n. a. S. I. Spasokukotsky of the Moscow Healthcare Department

Email: dr.rasner@gmail.com
PhD, Associate Professor atthe Department of Urology

B. M Brodetsky

SBEI НРБ MSMSU n.a. A.I. Evdokimov of RMPH; CCH n. a. S. I. Spasokukotsky of the Moscow Healthcare Department

D. Yu Pushkar

SBEI НРБ MSMSU n.a. A.I. Evdokimov of RMPH; CCH n. a. S. I. Spasokukotsky of the Moscow Healthcare Department

References

  1. Gossmann A., Okuhata Y., Shames D.M., Helbich Т.Н., Roberts T.P., Wendland M.F., Huber S., Brasch R.C. Prostate Cancer Tumor Grade Differentiation with Dynamic Contrast- enhanced MR Imaging in the Rat: Comparison of Macromolecular and Small-Molecular Contrast Media-Preliminary Experience. Radiology. 1999:213(1 ):26S-72.
  2. Dikaios N. Alkalbani J., Sidhu H.S., Fujiwara T., Abd-Alazeez M., Kirkham A., Allen C., Ahmed H., Emberton M., Freeman A., Halligan S., Taylor S., Atkinson D., Punwani S. Logistic regression model for diagnosis of transition zone prostate canceron multi-parametric MRI. Fur. Radiol. 2014;25(2):523-32.
  3. Кармазановский Г. Г. Оценка диагностической значимости метода ("чувствительность", "специфичность", “общая точность"). Анналы хирургической гепатологии. 1997;2:139-42.
  4. Barentsz 1.0., Richenberg 1., Clements ft., Choyke P., Verma S., Villeirs G., Rouviere 0., Logager V., FiittererJJ. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Fur. Radiol. 2012;22(4):746-57.
  5. Dickinson L., Ahmed H.U., Allen C., Barentsz J.O., Carey B., Futterer J.J., Heijmink S.W., Hoskin P.J., Kirkham A., Padhani A.R., Persad ft., Puech P., Punwani S., Sohaib A.S., Tombal B., Villers A., van der Meulen J., Emberton M. Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterization of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur. Urol. 2011;59:477-94.
  6. Rouviere O., Hartman R.P., Lyonnet D. Prostate MR imaging at high-field strength: evolution or revolution? Eur. Radiol. 2006;16:276-84.
  7. Cornud F., Flam T, Chauveinc L., Hamida K., Chretien Y., VieillefondA., HelenonO., MoreauJ.F. Extraprostatic spread of dinically localized prostate cancer: factors predictive ofpT3 tumor and of positive endorectal MR imaging examination results. Radiology. 2002;224:203-10.
  8. Kozlowski ft., Chang S.D., Jones E.C., Berean K.W., Chen H., Goldenberg S.L. Combined Diffusion-Weighted and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis-Correlation With Biopsy and Histopathology. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 2006; 24:108-13.
  9. Bloch B.N., Furman-Haran £., Helbich T.H., Lenkinski R.E., Degani H., Kratzik G, Susani M., Haitel A., Jaromi S., Ngo L., Rofsky N.M. Prostate Cancer: Accurate Determination of Extracapsular Extension with High-Spatial- Resolution Dynamic Contrast-enhanced and T2-weighted MR Imaging-Initial Results. Radiology. 2007;245(1 ):176-85.
  10. Chefchaouni M.C., Flam T., Cornud F., Thiounn N., Belin X., Desligneres S., Zerbib M., Moreau J.L., Debre B. Resultats de IRM endo-rectale dans la stadification locale du cancer de la prostate. J. Urol. 1996;102:51-5
  11. Presti J.C., Hricak H., Narayan P.A., Shinohara K., White S., Carroll P.R. Local staging of prostatic carcinoma: comparison of transrectal sonography and endorectal MR imaging. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1996;166:103-8.
  12. Bates T.S., Gillatt D.A., Cavanagh P.M., Speakman M. A comparison of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasonography in the local staging of prostate cancer with histopathological correlation. Br. J. Urol. 1997;79:927-32.
  13. Ikonen S., Karkkainen ft, Kivisaari L, Sato J.O., Taari K., Vehmas T., Tervahartiala ft., RannikkoS. Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging of prostatic cancer: comparison between fat-sup- pressed T2-weighted fast spin echo and three- dimensional dual-echo, steady-state sequences. Eur. Radiol. 2001;11:236-41.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2016 Bionika Media

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies