Prostatic MR imaging - Accuracy in differentiating cancer from other prostatic disorders

被引:29
作者
Ikonen, S
Kivisaari, L
Tervahartiala, P
Vehmas, T
Taari, K
Rannikko, S
机构
[1] Univ Helsinki Hosp, Dept Radiol, FIN-00029 Helsinki, Finland
[2] Univ Helsinki Hosp, Dept Urol, FIN-00029 Helsinki, Finland
[3] Finnish Inst Occupat Hlth, Helsinki, Finland
关键词
prostate; MR imaging; differential diagnosis;
D O I
10.1034/j.1600-0455.2001.420402.x
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. We assessed the accuracy of MR imaging in differentiating between cancer and other prostatic disorders, and evaluated the diagnostic criteria for various prostatic diseases. Material and Methods:. A total of 74 endorectal coil MR studies were performed on 72 patients. Twenty patients had prostatic cancer, 20 benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), 4 acute bacterial prostatitis, 5 chronic bacterial prostatitis (2 also belonging to the previous category), 19 chronic non-bacterial prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome, and 6 were symptomless voluntary controls. All studies were interpreted by two experienced radiologists in random order. Radiologists were blinded to all clinical data including the age of the patients. Based on MR findings, both radiologists filled in a form covering diagnostic criteria and diagnosis. Results: Accuracy in diagnosing prostate cancer was 74%. Sensitivity was 50% and specificity 83%, and positive and negative predictive values were 53 and 82%, respectively. Bacterial prostatitis showed some features similar to carcinoma. Abundant BPH rendered cancer detection more difficult. No diagnostic criterion was clearly better than the others. Interobserver agreement on the MR diagnosis ranged from moderate to good. Conclusion. Without knowledge of accurate clinical data, MR seems to be too insensitive in detecting prostate cancer to be used as a primary diagnostic tool.
引用
收藏
页码:348 / 354
页数:7
相关论文
共 31 条
  • [1] ABRAHAMSON JH, 1999, COMPUTER PROGRAMS EP
  • [2] AGE-RELATED-CHANGES OF THE PROSTATE - EVALUATION BY MR IMAGING
    ALLEN, KS
    KRESSEL, HY
    ARGER, PH
    POLLACK, HM
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1989, 152 (01) : 77 - 81
  • [3] Altman DG, 1991, Practical Statistics for Medical Research, DOI DOI 10.1002/SIM.4780101015
  • [4] A comparison of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasonography in the local staging of prostate cancer with histopathological correlation
    Bates, TS
    Gillatt, DA
    Cavanagh, PM
    Speakman, M
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1997, 79 (06): : 927 - 932
  • [5] BENNETT B D, 1990, Journal of Urology, V143, p265A
  • [6] NONPALPABLE PROSTATE-CANCER - DETECTION WITH MR IMAGING
    CARTER, HB
    BREM, RF
    TEMPANY, CM
    YANG, A
    EPSTEIN, JI
    WALSH, PC
    ZERHOUNI, EA
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 1991, 178 (02) : 523 - 525
  • [7] Conover W. J., 1980, PRACTICAL NONPARAMET
  • [8] EKICI S, 1998, BR J UROL INT, V83, P796
  • [9] GEVENOIS PA, 1992, EUR RADIOL, V2, P365
  • [10] CARCINOMA OF THE PROSTATE-GLAND - MR-IMAGING WITH PELVIC PHASED-ARRAY COILS VERSUS INTEGRATED ENDORECTAL PELVIC PHASED-ARRAY COILS
    HRICAK, H
    WHITE, S
    VIGNERON, D
    KURHANEWICZ, J
    KOSCO, A
    LEVIN, D
    WEISS, J
    NARAYAN, P
    CARROLL, PR
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 1994, 193 (03) : 703 - 709