Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Search
Quick Search in Journals
Quick Search anywhere
Advanced Search
Menu
  • Information
    • Previous
    Next
    Genitourinary Imaging

    Patients with a History of Elevated Prostate-Specific Antigen Levels and Negative Transrectal US–guided Quadrant or Sextant Biopsy Results: Value of MR Imaging

    Published Online:Sep 1 2002https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2243011553

    Abstract

    PURPOSE: To determine the role of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging performed with a combined endorectal body phased-array coil for patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels or suspicious free-to-total PSA ratios in whom prior transrectal ultrasonographically (US) guided biopsy findings were negative for prostate cancer.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-four patients with PSA levels greater than 4 ng/mL or free-to-total PSA ratios lower than 15% but negative biopsy findings were examined with T1- and T2-weighted MR imaging at 1.5 T with a combined endorectal body phased-array coil. All patients underwent digital rectal examination (DRE) and transrectal US. Thirty-eight patients underwent repeat biopsy after MR imaging. The accuracy of MR imaging for detection of prostate cancer was assessed prospectively. Retrospectively, MR imaging findings were correlated with individual biopsy site findings. MR imaging and biopsy results were correlated by using a cross table to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV). Retrospective analysis results were evaluated with receiver operating characteristic analysis. A P value of less than .05 indicated significance (χ2 test according to Pearson).

    RESULTS: At prospective analysis, MR imaging had a sensitivity of 83% and a PPV of 50% for detection of prostate cancer; these values were 33% and 67%, respectively, for DRE and 33% and 57%, respectively, for transrectal US. At retrospective site-by-site analysis, MR imaging results did not correlate significantly with individual biopsy site findings (P = .126); sensitivity was 65% and PPV was 12%.

    CONCLUSION: In this patient population, MR imaging has higher sensitivity for detection of prostate cancer than DRE or transrectal US.

    © RSNA, 2002

    References

    • 1 Dennis LK, Resnick MI. Analysis of recent trends in prostate cancer incidence and mortality. Prostate 2000; 42: 247-252. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 2 Sakr WA, Haas GP, Cassin BF, Pontes JE, Crissman JD. The frequency of carcinoma and intraepithelial neoplasia of the prostate in young male patients. J Urol 1993; 150: 379-385. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 3 Catalona WJ, Smith DS, Ratliff TL, et al. Measurement of prostate-specific antigen in serum as a screening test for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 1991; 324: 1156-1161. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 4 Colombo T, Schips L, Augustin H, et al. Value of transrectal ultrasound in preoperative staging of prostate cancer. Minerva Urol Nefrol 1999; 51: 1-4. Medline, Google Scholar
    • 5 Keetch DW, Catalona WJ, Smith DS. Serial prostatic biopsies in men with persistently elevated serum prostate specific antigen values. J Urol 1994; 151: 1571-1574. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 6 Ellis WJ, Brawer MK. Repeat prostate needle biopsy: who needs it? J Urol 1995; 153: 1496-1498. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 7 Nicolas V, Beese M, Keulers A, Bressel M, Kastendieck H, Huland H. MR-tomographie des prostatakarzinoms vergleich konventionelle und endorektale MRT. Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr 1994; 161: 319-326. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • 8 Huch Böni RA, Boner JA, Lütolf UM, Trinkler F, Pestalozzi DM, Krestin GP. Contrast-enhanced endorectal coil MRI in local staging of prostate carcinoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1995; 19: 232-237. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 9 Yu KK, Hricak H, Alagappan R, Chernoff DM, Bacchetti P, Zaloudek CJ. Detection of extracapsular extension of prostate carcinoma with endorectal and phased-array coil MR imaging: multivariate feature analysis. Radiology 1997; 202: 697-702. Link, Google Scholar
    • 10 Ikonen S, Kärkkäinen P, Kivisaari L, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of clinically localized prostatic cancer. J Urol 1998; 159: 915-919. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 11 Ellis JH, Tempany C, Sarin MS, Gatsonis C, Rifkin MD, McNeil BJ. MR imaging and sonography of early prostatic cancer: pathologic and imaging features that influence identification and diagnosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994; 162: 865-872. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 12 Perrotti M, Han KR, Epstein RE, et al. Prospective evaluation of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging to detect tumor foci in men with prior negative prostatic biopsy: a pilot study. J Urol 1999; 162: 1314-1317. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 13 McNeal JE. Cancer volume and site of origin of adenocarcinoma in the prostate: relationship to local and distant spread. Hum Pathol 1992; 23: 258-263. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 14 Miller GJ, Cygan JM. Morphology of prostate cancer: the effects of multifocality on histological grade, tumor volume and penetration. J Urol 1994; 152: 1709-1713. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 15 Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging: 1974. J Urol 1974; 111: 58-64. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 16 Sgrignoli AR, Walsh PC, Steinberg GD, Steiner MS, Epstein JI. Prognostic factors in men with stage D1 prostate cancer: identification of patients less likely to have prolonged survival after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1994; 152: 1077-1081. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 17 Berner A, Waere H, Nesland JM, Paus E, Danielsen HE, Fossa SD. DNA ploidy, serum prostate specific antigen, histological grade and immunohistochemistry as predictive parameters of lymph node metastases in T1-T3/M0 prostatic adenocarcinoma. Br J Urol 1995; 75: 26-32. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 18 Weefer AE, Hricak H, Vigneron DB, et al. Sextant localization of prostate cancer: comparison of sextant biopsy, magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging with step section histology. J Urol 2000; 164: 400-404. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 19 Bostwick DG. Gleason grading of prostatic needle biopsies/correlation with grade in 316 matched prostatectomies. Am J Surg Pathol 1994; 18: 796-803. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 20 White S, Hricak H, Forstner R, et al. Prostate cancer: Effect of postbiopsy hemorrhage on interpretation of MR images. Radiology 1995; 195: 385-390. Link, Google Scholar
    • 21 Jager GJ, Ruijter ETG, Kaa CA, et al. Dynamic turboFLASH subtraction technique for contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the prostate: correlation with histopathologic results. Radiology 1997; 203: 645-652. Link, Google Scholar
    • 22 Scheidler J, Hricak H, Vigneron DB, et al. Prostate cancer: localization with three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging—clinicopathologic study. Radiology 1999; 213: 473-480. Link, Google Scholar
    • 23 Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron DB, Hricak H, Narayan P, Carroll P, Nelson SJ. Three-dimensional H-1 MR spectroscopic imaging of the in situ human prostate with high (0.24–0.7-cm3) spatial resolution. Radiology 1996; 198: 795-805. Link, Google Scholar
    • 24 Engelhard K, Hollenbach HP, Deimling M, Kreckel M, Riedl C. Combination of signal intensity measurements of lesions in the peripheral zone of prostate with MRI and serum PSA level for differentiating benign disease from prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 2000; 10: 1947-1953. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 25 D’Amico AV, Tempany CM, Cormack R, et al. Transperineal magnetic resonance image guided Prostate biopsy. J Urol 2000; 164: 385-387. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar

    Article History

    Published in print: Sept 2002