STAGING OF PROSTATE-CANCER - RESULTS OF RADIOLOGY DIAGNOSTIC ONCOLOGY GROUP PROJECT COMPARISON OF 3 MR-IMAGING TECHNIQUES

被引:185
作者
TEMPANY, CM
ZHOU, X
ZERHOUNI, EA
RIFKIN, MD
QUINT, LE
PICCOLI, CW
ELLIS, JH
MCNEIL, BJ
机构
[1] JOHNS HOPKINS MED INST,RUSSELL H MORGAN DEPT RADIOL & RADIOL SCI,BALTIMORE,MD 21205
[2] HARVARD UNIV,SCH MED,DEPT HLTH CARE POLICY,BOSTON,MA 02115
[3] THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIV HOSP,DEPT RADIOL,PHILADELPHIA,PA
[4] UNIV MICHIGAN,DEPT RADIOL,ANN ARBOR,MI 48109
关键词
DIAGNOSTIC RADIOLOGY; OBSERVER PERFORMANCE; PROSTATE; MR; NEOPLASMS;
D O I
10.1148/radiology.192.1.8208963
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
PURPOSE: To assess accuracy of three different magnetic resonance (MR) imaging techniques, including the endorectal coil, in staging prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MR imaging was performed in 213 patients with prostate cancer with a conventional body coil, with fat suppression and a body coil, and with an endorectal coil. Radiologists identified tumor invasion into periprostatic tissues, neurovascular bundles, and seminal vesicles. Each technique was evaluated separately, and in a subset of 74 patients the three techniques were evaluated together. Images obtained with the two body-coil techniques were read in combination with images obtained with the endorectal coil (combination A) and alone (combination B). RESULTS: Overall accuracy for conventional body-coil, fat-suppressed body-coil, and endorectal-coil MR was 61%, 64%, and 54%, respectively. Overall group accuracy for combinations A and B was 57% and 61%. Considerable interreader variability was found for combination A. CONCLUSION: No technique was highly accurate for staging early prostate cancer. Individual radiologists did achieve a high degree of staging accuracy with the endorectal-coil and body-coil combination.
引用
收藏
页码:47 / 54
页数:8
相关论文
共 23 条
  • [1] CANCER STATISTICS, 1994
    BORING, CC
    SQUIRES, TS
    TONG, T
    MONTGOMERY, S
    [J]. CA-A CANCER JOURNAL FOR CLINICIANS, 1994, 44 (01) : 7 - 26
  • [2] STAGING ERRORS IN CLINICALLY LOCALIZED PROSTATIC-CANCER
    CATALONA, WJ
    STEIN, AJ
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1982, 127 (03) : 452 - 456
  • [3] CHELSKY MJ, 1993, J UROLOGY, pA287
  • [4] CHEUNG LP, 1992, RADIOLOGY, V185, P275
  • [5] COMPARING THE AREAS UNDER 2 OR MORE CORRELATED RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC CURVES - A NONPARAMETRIC APPROACH
    DELONG, ER
    DELONG, DM
    CLARKEPEARSON, DI
    [J]. BIOMETRICS, 1988, 44 (03) : 837 - 845
  • [6] COLLABORATIVE EVALUATIONS OF DIAGNOSTIC-TESTS - EXPERIENCE OF THE RADIOLOGY-DIAGNOSTIC-ONCOLOGY-GROUP
    GATSONIS, C
    MCNEIL, BJ
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 1990, 175 (02) : 571 - 575
  • [7] KREBS TL, 1992, RADIOLOGY, V185, P275
  • [8] INFLATABLE SURFACE COIL FOR MR IMAGING OF THE PROSTATE
    MARTIN, JF
    HAJEK, P
    BAKER, L
    GYLYSMORIN, V
    FITZMORRISGLASS, R
    MATTREY, RR
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 1988, 167 (01) : 268 - 270
  • [9] Metz C, 1989, CORROC2 PROGRAM ROC
  • [10] COMPARISON OF MAGNETIC-RESONANCE-IMAGING AND ULTRASONOGRAPHY IN STAGING EARLY PROSTATE-CANCER - RESULTS OF A MULTIINSTITUTIONAL COOPERATIVE TRIAL
    RIFKIN, MD
    ZERHOUNI, EA
    GATSONIS, CA
    QUINT, LE
    PAUSHTER, DM
    EPSTEIN, JI
    HAMPER, U
    WALSH, PC
    MCNEIL, BJ
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1990, 323 (10) : 621 - 626