Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2013
Performance of multiparametric MRI in men at risk of prostate cancer before the first biopsy: a paired validating cohort study using template prostate mapping biopsies as the reference standard.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Abd-Alazeez M, Kirkham A, Ahmed H U, Arya M, Anastasiadis E, Charman S C, Freeman A, Emberton M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has the potential to serve as a non-invasive triage test for men at risk of prostate cancer. Our objective was to determine the performance characteristics of mpMRI in men at risk before the first biopsy using 5 mm template prostate mapping (TPM) as the reference standard.
METHODS: One hundred and twenty-nine consecutive men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer, who had no prior biopsy, underwent mpMRI (T1/T2-weighted, diffusion-weighting, dynamic contrast enhancement) followed by TPM. The primary analysis used were as follows: (a) radiological scores of suspicion of ≥3 attributed from a five-point ordinal scale, (b) a target condition on TPM of any Gleason pattern ≥4 and/or a maximum cancer core length of ≥4 mm and (c) two sectors of analysis per prostate (right and left prostate halves). Secondary analyses evaluated the impact of changing the mpMRI score threshold to ≥4 and varying the target definition for clinical significance.
RESULTS: One hundred and forty-one out of 258 (55%) sectors of analysis showed 'any cancer' and 77/258 (30%) had the target histological condition for the purpose of deriving the primary outcome. Median (with range) for age, PSA, gland volume and number of biopsies taken were 62 years (41-82), 5.8 ng ml(-1) (1.2-20), 40 ml (16-137) and 41 cores (20-93), respectively. For the primary outcome sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and area under the receiver-operating curve (with 95% confidence intervals) were 94% (88-99%), 23% (17-29%), 34% (28-40%), 89% (79-98%) and 0.72 (0.65-0.79), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: MpMRI demonstrated encouraging diagnostic performance characteristics in detecting and ruling out clinically significant prostate cancer in men at risk, who were biopsy naive.
METHODS: One hundred and twenty-nine consecutive men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer, who had no prior biopsy, underwent mpMRI (T1/T2-weighted, diffusion-weighting, dynamic contrast enhancement) followed by TPM. The primary analysis used were as follows: (a) radiological scores of suspicion of ≥3 attributed from a five-point ordinal scale, (b) a target condition on TPM of any Gleason pattern ≥4 and/or a maximum cancer core length of ≥4 mm and (c) two sectors of analysis per prostate (right and left prostate halves). Secondary analyses evaluated the impact of changing the mpMRI score threshold to ≥4 and varying the target definition for clinical significance.
RESULTS: One hundred and forty-one out of 258 (55%) sectors of analysis showed 'any cancer' and 77/258 (30%) had the target histological condition for the purpose of deriving the primary outcome. Median (with range) for age, PSA, gland volume and number of biopsies taken were 62 years (41-82), 5.8 ng ml(-1) (1.2-20), 40 ml (16-137) and 41 cores (20-93), respectively. For the primary outcome sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and area under the receiver-operating curve (with 95% confidence intervals) were 94% (88-99%), 23% (17-29%), 34% (28-40%), 89% (79-98%) and 0.72 (0.65-0.79), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: MpMRI demonstrated encouraging diagnostic performance characteristics in detecting and ruling out clinically significant prostate cancer in men at risk, who were biopsy naive.