Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Diagnostic Accuracy of a MR Protocol Acquired with and without Endorectal Coil for Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Multicenter Study


Barth, Borna K; Rupp, Niels J; Cornelius, Alexander; Nanz, Daniel; Grobholz, Rainer; Schmidtpeter, Martin; Wild, Peter J; Eberli, Daniel; Donati, Olivio F (2019). Diagnostic Accuracy of a MR Protocol Acquired with and without Endorectal Coil for Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Multicenter Study. Current Urology, 12(2):88-96.

Abstract

Introduction The purpose of this study was to compare diagnostic accuracy of a prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) protocol for detection of prostate cancer between images acquired with and without en-dorectal coil (ERC).
Materials This study was approved by the regional ethics committee. Between 2014 and 2015, 33 patients (median age 51.3 years; range 42.1-77.3 years) who underwent prostate-MRI at 3T scanners at 2 different institutions, acquired with (mpMRI) and without (mpMRI) ERC and who received radical prostatectomy, were included in this retrospective study. Two expert readers (R1, R2) attributed a PI-RADS version 2 score for the most suspect (i. e. index) lesion for mpMRI and mpMRI. Sensitivity and positive predictive value for detection of index lesions were assessed using 2 × 2 contingency tables. Differences between groups were tested using the McNemar test. Whole-mount histopathology served as reference standard.
Results On a quadrant-basis cumulative sensitivity ranged between 0.61-0.67 and 0.76-0.88 for mpMRI and mpMRI protocols, respectively (p > 0.05). Cumulative positive predictive value ranged between 0.80-0.81 and 0.89-0.91 for mpMRI and mpMRI protocols, respectively. The differences were not statistically significant for R1 (p = 0.267) or R2 (p = 0.508).
Conclusion Our results suggest that there may be no significant differences for detection of prostate cancer between images acquired with and without an ERC.

Abstract

Introduction The purpose of this study was to compare diagnostic accuracy of a prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) protocol for detection of prostate cancer between images acquired with and without en-dorectal coil (ERC).
Materials This study was approved by the regional ethics committee. Between 2014 and 2015, 33 patients (median age 51.3 years; range 42.1-77.3 years) who underwent prostate-MRI at 3T scanners at 2 different institutions, acquired with (mpMRI) and without (mpMRI) ERC and who received radical prostatectomy, were included in this retrospective study. Two expert readers (R1, R2) attributed a PI-RADS version 2 score for the most suspect (i. e. index) lesion for mpMRI and mpMRI. Sensitivity and positive predictive value for detection of index lesions were assessed using 2 × 2 contingency tables. Differences between groups were tested using the McNemar test. Whole-mount histopathology served as reference standard.
Results On a quadrant-basis cumulative sensitivity ranged between 0.61-0.67 and 0.76-0.88 for mpMRI and mpMRI protocols, respectively (p > 0.05). Cumulative positive predictive value ranged between 0.80-0.81 and 0.89-0.91 for mpMRI and mpMRI protocols, respectively. The differences were not statistically significant for R1 (p = 0.267) or R2 (p = 0.508).
Conclusion Our results suggest that there may be no significant differences for detection of prostate cancer between images acquired with and without an ERC.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics

Altmetrics

Downloads

0 downloads since deposited on 24 May 2019
0 downloads since 12 months

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Clinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology
04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Institute of Pathology and Molecular Pathology
04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Urological Clinic
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:8 March 2019
Deposited On:24 May 2019 13:20
Last Modified:17 Sep 2019 20:23
Publisher:Karger
ISSN:1661-7649
OA Status:Closed
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1159/000489425
PubMed ID:31114466

Download