Differentiation of prostatic carcinoma and benign prostatic hyperplasia: Correlation between dynamic Gd‐DTPA‐enhanced MR imaging and histopathology

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Registration of prostate histology images to ex vivo MR images via strand‐shaped fiducials

Gibson

Crukley

Gaed

et al. 2012

“…Preliminary studies have shown that prostate cancer tissues enhanced earlier than the normal PZ tissues (24), but the usefulness of dynamic MRI in depicting prostate cancer remains controversial because of an overlap in enhancement patterns between normal and cancerous tissues (31–33). In particular, the optimum imaging period after gadolinium injection remains unknown; moreover, thus far, there is limited information on the time‐enhancement curves of prostate cancer and the normal surrounding tissues (32–33). Recently, quantitative analyses using the time‐intensity curve or the tracer kinetic model have been reported (10, 34, 35).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prostate cancer screening: The clinical value of diffusion‐weighted imaging and dynamic MR imaging in combination with T2‐weighted imaging

Tanimoto

Nakashima

Kohno

et al. 2006

302

205

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical value of diffusionweighted imaging (DWI) and dynamic MRI in combination with T2-weighted imaging (T2W) for the detection of prostate cancer. Materials and Methods:A total of 83 patients with elevated serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels (Ͼ4.0 ng/mL) were evaluated by T2W, DWI, and dynamic MRI at 1.5 T prior to needle biopsy. The data from the results of the T2W alone (protocol A), combination of T2W and DWI (protocol B), and the combination of T2WϩDWI and dynamic MRI (protocol C) were entered into a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, under results of systemic biopsy as the standard of reference.Results: Prostate cancer was pathologically detected in 44 of the 83 patients. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and the area under the ROC curve (Az) for the detection of prostate cancer were as follows: 73%, 54%, 64%, and 0.711, respectively, in protocol A; 84%, 85%, 84%, and 0.905, respectively, in protocol B; and 95%, 74%, 86%, and 0.966, respectively, in protocol C. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were significantly different between the three protocols (P Ͻ 0.01). Conclusion:In patients with elevated serum PSA levels, the combination of T2W, DWI, and dynamic MRI may be a valuable tool for detecting prostate cancer and avoiding an unnecessary biopsy without missing prostate cancer.

“…In an attempt to overcome the limitation of T2‐weighted imaging for prostate cancer detection and localization, the enhancement characteristics of prostate cancer have been evaluated in several studies (19, 20, 23–25). All of those studies postulated that prostate cancer showed earlier and stronger enhancement than normal tissue.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wash‐in rate on the basis of dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI: Usefulness for prostate cancer detection and localization

Kim

Hong

Choi

et al. 2005

125

Purpose:To evaluate the usefulness of the wash-in rate based on dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI for the detection and localization of prostate cancer. Materials and Methods:In 53 patients, the wash-in rate was measured in the cancer area and in three normal areas (the peripheral zone, inner portion of the transitional zone, and outer portion of the transitional zone). On the basis of these data, parametric imaging was generated and then its accuracy for cancer detection and location was evaluated compared to that of T2-weighted imaging without the use of an endorectal coil. For that purpose the entire prostate was divided into 18 segments. Results:The wash-in rate value was greater in cancer tissue (9.2/second) than in three normal tissues (3.3/second, 6.7/second, and 3.2/second, respectively; P Ͻ 0.001). The sensitivity and specificity were greater on parametric imaging of the wash-in rate compared to T2-weighted imaging in the entire prostate (96% and 82% vs. 65% and 60%, respectively) and the peripheral zone (96% and 97% vs. 75% and 53%; P Ͻ 0.05). In the transitional zone, the sensitivity was greater on parametric imaging (96%) than on T2-weighted imaging (45%; P ϭ 0.016), but the specificity was similar (51% vs. 73%; P ϭ 0.102). Conclusion:The wash-in rate based on DCE-MRI is a useful parameter for prostate cancer detection and localization.