Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging Curve-type Analysis: Is It Helpful in the Differentiation of Prostate Cancer from Healthy Peripheral Zone?

Hansford, Barry G.; Peng, Yahui; Jiang, Yulei; Vannier, Michael W.; Antic, Tatjana; Thomas, Stephen; McCann, Stephanie; Oto, Aytekin

doi:10.1148/radiol.14140847

Cited by 81 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The binary results of DCE lead to good Total 5 49 24 78 Total 2 55 23 80 interreader agreement; however, the accuracy of DCE is only 69-70% for both scales and both readers. These results are similar to those of a previous report of ESUR PI-RADS 32 and are in line with other publications that evaluated the accuracy of DCE for prostate cancer detection. [33][34][35] Our study found no clear difference in the accuracy of overall scores, for both readers, using a cut-off value of 3 or 4.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Multiparametric MRI of the prostate: diagnostic performance and interreader agreement of two scoring systems

Lin

Muglia

Silva

et al. 2016

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare the diagnostic accuracies and interreader agreements of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v. 2 and University of California San Francisco (UCSF) multiparametric prostate MRI scale for diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer. Methods: This institutional review board-approved retrospective study included 49 males who had 1.5 T endorectal MRI and prostatectomy. Two radiologists scored suspicious lesions on MRI using PI-RADS v. 2 and the UCSF scale. Percent agreement, 2 32 tables and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (Az) were used to assess and compare the individual and overall scores of these scales. Interreader agreements were estimated with kappa statistics. Conclusion: Although PI-RADS v. 2 DWI score may have a higher discriminatory performance than the UCSF scale counterpart to diagnose clinically significant cancer, the utilization of the UCSF scale weighing system for the integration of PI-RADS v. 2 individual parameter scores improved the accuracy its overall score. Advances in knowledge: PI-RADS v. 2 is moderately accurate for the identification of clinically significant prostate cancer, but the utilization of alternative approaches to derive the overall PI-RADS v. 2 score, including the one used by the UCSF system, may improve its diagnostic accuracy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Multiparametric MRI of the prostate: diagnostic performance and interreader agreement of two scoring systems

Lin

Muglia

Silva

et al. 2016

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sinyal intensitesi değişikliklerinin kalitatif analizi, sinyal intensitesi -zaman eğrisi, kantitatif analiz ise kontrast madde konsantrasyonzaman eğrileri ya da fizyolojik farmakokinetik parametreler değerlendirilerek yapılabilir [12].…”

Section: Dk-mrg Analiz Yöntemleriunclassified

Prostat Kanseri Tani ve Yonetiminde Dinamik Kontrastli MRG

Uysal¹,

Fakultesi²,

Özmen³

2018

Trd Sem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

GİRİŞProstat kanseri erkeklerde en sık görülen malign tümördür ve kanser ölümlerinin ikinci en sık nedenidir. Manyetik rezonans görüntüleme (MRG) anatomik bilgiler yanında fonksiyonel bilgiler de sağlaya-rak prostat kanserinin erken teşhisi, lokalizasyonu, evrelemesi ve biyolojik agresifliğin belirlenmesinde; tedavi sonrası ise takip ve rekürren kanserin tespitinde önemli bir rol üstlenmektedir [1,2].Prostat Görüntüleme Raporlama ve Veri Sisteminin 2. Sürümü (PIRADS v2) prostat kanserinin tespiti, lokalizasyonu, karakterizasyonu ve risk sınıflandırmasını geliştirmek ve multiparametrik prostat MRG tetkikinin çekimi, yorumlanması ve raporlanmasında uluslararası standardizasyon sağlamak için oluşturulmuş bir kılavuzdur. PIRADS V2'de önemli değişik-liklerden biri lezyon lokalizasyonuna göre dominant sekansın değişmesi olup; transizyonel zon lezyonlarında T2 ağırlıklı görüntüler, periferal zonda (PZ) ise difüzyon ağırlıklı görüntü-leme (DAG) dominant sekansdır [1,2]. Dinamik Kontrastlı Görüntüleme Faydaları, Kontrast Madde Gerekli mi?Özellikle PZ'deki DAG'ye dayalı PI-RADS 3 skoru, klinik olarak karar vermek (biyopsi veya takip) için yetersizdir. Dinamik kontrastlı MRG (DK-MRG), eğer DK-MRG bulguları pozitif çıkarsa, esas olarak PI-RADS 3 lezyonların skorunu PI-RADS 4'e yükseltmektedir [2].Dinamik kontrastlı görüntüleme, PZ'deki PI-RADS 3 ve 4 lezyonlarda kanser saptama olasılığını artırmaktadır. Greer ve arkadaşları-nın çalışmaları periferal zonda DK-MRG bulgularının pozitif olması durumunda PI-RADS 3 skorunu PI-RADS 4'e yükselten PI-RADS 3+1 stratejisini desteklemektedir [2]. Ayrıca aynı çalışmadan elde edilen veriler DK-MRG pozitifliğinin tüm PIRADS skorları için periferal zonda kanser saptama olasılığını arttırdığını göstermekte olup bu etki kısmen transizyonel zonda da görülmekle birlikte PZ lezyonların-daki kadar yarar sağlamamaktadır. Dolayısı

show abstract

“…In fact, a meta-analysis failed to find a significant difference between visual and nonvisual analysis, 35 and a recent study showed poor performance of curve type analysis in detection of prostate cancer. 36 Quantitative parameters can also be calculated from DCE-derived pharmacokinetic maps. Typical parameters include: k trans , representing forward transfer of the contrast agent from vasculature to the interstitial space; K ep , representing backward leakage of contrast from interstitial space to vasculature; and v e , fractional volume of the interstitial space per tissue volume.…”

Section: Dcementioning

confidence: 99%

Spotlight on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer management: current perspectives

Hassanzadeh¹,

Tempany²

2016

RMI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinical behavior of prostate cancer, the most common noncutaneous cancer in men, ranges from a nonsignificant indolent tumor to an aggressive cancer. Prostate cancer is subject to overdiagnosis and overtreatment, making screening, diagnosis, and treatment planning a controversial issue. Recently, even noninvasive simple screening methods such as prostatespecific antigen level and digital rectal examination are no longer recommended for screening as it has resulted in no reduction in mortality. Diagnosis and further treatment planning, however, are still based on a random transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy, an invasive method with controversial efficacy that has been deemed as unnecessarily revealing nonsignificant tumors. Magnetic resonance (MR)-based techniques are emerging that provide noninvasive tools that are promising in the detection of clinically significant lesions and accurate staging. Moreover, MR imaging improves the performance of image-guided procedures, both in diagnosis and therapy. We focus here on recent advances in multiparametric MR imaging in prostate cancer diagnosis and provide a brief overview of other emerging techniques.

show abstract

Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging Curve-type Analysis: Is It Helpful in the Differentiation of Prostate Cancer from Healthy Peripheral Zone?

Abstract: Qualitative DCE MR imaging time-curve-type analysis performs poorly for differentiation of PCa from healthy prostatic tissue. Interobserver agreement is excellent in assessment of type 3 curves but only moderate for type 1 and 2 curves.

Cited by 81 publications

References 39 publications

Multiparametric MRI of the prostate: diagnostic performance and interreader agreement of two scoring systems

Multiparametric MRI of the prostate: diagnostic performance and interreader agreement of two scoring systems

Prostat Kanseri Tani ve Yonetiminde Dinamik Kontrastli MRG

Spotlight on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer management: current perspectives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About