Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Correlation of endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate with pathologic stage

  • Free Paper
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim was to evaluate the pretreatment efficacy of endorectal coil (ERC) MRI in accurately predicting extracapsular extension in a group of intermediate risk patients. A total of 40 intermediate risk patients were identified who underwent pretreatment ERC MRI and subsequent radical prostatectomy (RP). Imaging studies and pathologic analysis were compared with respect to presence of extracapsular extension (ECE), involvement of seminal vesicles, and appearance of regional nodes. Mean age was 62 years, PSA 14.8, and most common stage was cT2a/pT2c and Gleason 6. ERC MRI has a positive predictive value of 81%, specificity 89%, and odds ratio 6.47 in determining extracapsular extension. Conversely, its sensitivity is only 43%, with a negative predictive value of 59%. ERC MRI may be useful as an adjunctive study for intermediate risk patients due to its high specificity and positive predictive value, thereby adding information to the clinical decision-making process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig 1
Fig 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bauer JJ, Zeng J, Weir J et al. (1999) Three-dimensional computer-simulated prostate models: lateral prostate biopsies increase the detection rate of prostate cancer. Urology 53:961–967

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Beahrs OH, Henson DE, Hutter RVP et al. (1992) Manual for staging of Cancer. In: Lippincott JB (ed) American Joint Committee on Cancer, 4th edn. JB Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 181–186

  3. Catalona WJ, Smith DS (1998) Cancer recurrence and survival rates after anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy for prostate cancer: intermediate-term results. J Urol 160:2428–2434

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Schnall M, Malkowicz SB, Tomaszewski JE, Schultz D, Wein A (1995) The impact of the inclusion of endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging in a multivariate analysis to predict clinically unsuspected extraprostatic cancer. Cancer 75:2368–2372

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz B et al. (2000) Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging as a predictor of biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 164:759–763

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gleason DF (1997) Histologic grading and clinical staging of prostatic carcinoma. In: Tannenbaum M (ed) Urologic pathology: the prostate, part II. Chapt. 9. Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, pp 171–198

  7. Greenlee RT, Hill-Harmon MB, Murray T, Thun M (2001) Cancer statistics, 2001. CA Cancer J Clin 51:15–36

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Grossfeld GD, Chang JJ, Broering JM et al. (2000) Impact of positive surgical margins on prostate cancer recurrence and the use of secondary cancer treatment: data from the CaPSURE database. J Urol 163:1171–1177

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Holmberg L, Bill-Axelson A, Helgesen F et al. (2002) A randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 347:781–789

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hull GW, Rabbani F, Abbas F, Wheeler TM, Kattan MW, Scardino PT (2002) Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients. J Urol 167:528–534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Partin AW, Yoo J, Carter HB, Pearson JD, Chan DW, Epstein JI, Walsh PC (1993) The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer. J Urol 150:110–114

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Roach M (1993) Letter to the editor. J Urol 150:1923–1924

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sohayda C (2000) Extent of extracapsular extension in localized prostate cancer. Urology 55:382–386

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tempany CM, Zhou X, Zerhouni EA et al. (1994) Staging of prostate cancer: results of Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group project comparison of three MR imaging techniques. Radiology 192:47–54

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1551 Hugo Circle, Silver Spring, MD , 20906, USA

    Stephen A. Brassell

  2. Departments of Surgery (Urology) and Radiology, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, 6900 Georgia Ave.NW, Washington, DC, 20307-5001 , USA

    Stephen A. Brassell, William R. Krueger, Jong-Ho Choi & John A. Taylor III

Authors
  1. Stephen A. Brassell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. William R. Krueger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jong-Ho Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John A. Taylor III
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen A. Brassell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brassell, S.A., Krueger, W.R., Choi, JH. et al. Correlation of endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate with pathologic stage. World J Urol 22, 289–292 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-004-0440-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-004-0440-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation