SEXTANT LOCALIZATION OF PROSTATE CANCER: COMPARISON OF SEXTANT BIOPSY, MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING AND MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPIC IMAGING WITH STEP SECTION HISTOLOGY

Abstract

No AccessJournal of UrologyCLINICAL UROLOGY: Original Articles1 Aug 2000SEXTANT LOCALIZATION OF PROSTATE CANCER: COMPARISON OF SEXTANT BIOPSY, MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING AND MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPIC IMAGING WITH STEP SECTION HISTOLOGY A.E. WEFER, H. HRICAK, D.B. VIGNERON, F.V. COAKLEY, Y. LU, J. WEFER, U. MUELLER-LISSE, P.R. CARROLL, and J. KURHANEWICZ A.E. WEFERA.E. WEFER , H. HRICAKH. HRICAK , D.B. VIGNEROND.B. VIGNERON , F.V. COAKLEYF.V. COAKLEY , Y. LUY. LU , J. WEFERJ. WEFER , U. MUELLER-LISSEU. MUELLER-LISSE , P.R. CARROLLP.R. CARROLL , and J. KURHANEWICZJ. KURHANEWICZ View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67370-3AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: We compared the accuracy of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging with that of sextant biopsy for the sextant localization of prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Sextant biopsy, MRI, magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging and radical prostatectomy with step section histology were done in 47 patients with prostate cancer. For each sextant we categorized biopsy and imaging results as positive or negative for cancer. Step section histology was used as the standard of reference. Results: For sextant localization of prostate cancer MRI and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging were more sensitive but less specific than biopsy (67% and 76% versus 50%, and 69% and 68% versus 82%, respectively). The sensitivity of sextant biopsy was significantly less in the prostate apex than in the mid prostate or prostate base (38% versus 52% and 62%, respectively). MRI and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging had similar efficacy throughout the prostate compared with biopsy only as well as better sensitivity and specificity in the prostate apex (60% and 75%, and 86% and 68%, respectively). A positive biopsy or imaging result had 94% sensitivity for cancer and concordant positivity by all 3 tests was highly specific at 98%. Conclusions: Overall MRI and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging have accuracy similar to biopsy for intraprostatic localization of cancer and they are more accurate than biopsy in the prostate apex. These 2 imaging modalities may supplement biopsy results by increasing physician confidence when evaluating intraprostatic tumor location, which may be important for planning disease targeted therapy. References 1 : Focal therapy for prostate cancer 1996: maximizing outcome. Urology1997; 49: 84. Google Scholar 2 : Anatomic site-specific positive margins in organ-confined prostate cancer and its impact on outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urology1997; 50: 733. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 3 : Accuracy in core biopsy of the prostate. An autopsy study. Urol Int1986; 41: 276. Google Scholar 4 : Comparison of digital rectal examination and biopsy results with the radical prostatectomy specimen. J Urol1999; 161: 494. Link, Google Scholar 5 : Value of ultrasound-guided systematic sextant biopsies in prostate tumor mapping. Eur Urol1999; 35: 289. Google Scholar 6 : Detection of extracapsular extension of prostate carcinoma with endorectal and phased-array coil MR imaging multivariate feature analysis. Radiology1997; 202: 697. Google Scholar 7 : Three-dimensional H-1 MR spectroscopic imaging of the in situ human prostate with high (0.24–0.7-cm3) spatial resolution. Radiology1996; 198: 795. Google Scholar 8 : Transrectal ultrasound guided prostatic nerve blockade eases systematic needle biopsy of the prostate. J Urol1996; 155: 607. Link, Google Scholar 9 : Pathology of adenocarcinoma of the prostate. In: . Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co.1998: 2497. chapt. 81. Google Scholar 10 : An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York: Chapman and Hall1993. Google Scholar 11 Newcombe R.G.: Simultaneous comparison of sensitivity and specificity of two tests in the paired design. A straightforward graphical approach. Stat Med, in press, 2000 Google Scholar 12 : Repeat screening for prostate cancer after 1-year followup in 984 biopsied men: clinical and pathological features of detected cancer. J Urol1998; 160: 2121. Link, Google Scholar 13 : Prostate cancer: localization with three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging—clinicopathologic study. Radiology1999; 213: 473. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 14 : The influence of prostate size on cancer detection. Urology1995; 46: 831. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 15 : Prospective evaluation of lateral biopsies of the peripheral zone for prostate cancer detection. J Urol1998; 160: 2111. Link, Google Scholar From the Departments of Radiology and Urology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California© 2000 by American Urological Association, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byMorelli G, Pagni R, Mariani C, Minervini R, Morelli A, Gori F, Ferdeghini E, Paterni M, Mauro E, Guidi E, Armillotta N, Canale D, Vitti P, Caramella D and Minervini A (2011) Results of Vardenafil Mediated Power Doppler Ultrasound, Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound and Systematic Random Biopsies to Detect Prostate CancerJournal of Urology, VOL. 185, NO. 6, (2126-2131), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2011.Rastinehad A, Baccala A, Chung P, Proano J, Kruecker J, Xu S, Locklin J, Turkbey B, Shih J, Bratslavsky G, Linehan W, Glossop N, Yan P, Kadoury S, Choyke P, Wood B and Pinto P (2011) D'Amico Risk Stratification Correlates With Degree of Suspicion of Prostate Cancer on Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingJournal of Urology, VOL. 185, NO. 3, (815-820), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2011.Revelo M, Cookson M, Chang S, Shook M, Smith J and Shappell S (2018) Incidence and Location of Prostate and Urothelial Carcinoma in Prostates from Cystoprostatectomies: Implications for Possible Apical Sparing SurgeryJournal of Urology, VOL. 179, NO. 5S, (S27-S32), Online publication date: 1-May-2008.Martorana G, Schiavina R, Corti B, Farsad M, Salizzoni E, Brunocilla E, Bertaccini A, Manferrari F, Castellucci P, Fanti S, Canini R, Grigioni W and D'Errico Grigioni A (2018) 11C-Choline Positron Emission Tomography/Computerized Tomography for Tumor Localization of Primary Prostate Cancer in Comparison With 12-Core BiopsyJournal of Urology, VOL. 176, NO. 3, (954-960), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2006.Susil R, Ménard C, Krieger A, Coleman J, Camphausen K, Choyke P, Fichtinger G, Whitcomb L, Coleman C and Atalar E (2018) Transrectal Prostate Biopsy and Fiducial Marker Placement in a Standard 1.5T Magnetic Resonance Imaging ScannerJournal of Urology, VOL. 175, NO. 1, (113-120), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2006.MULLERAD M, HRICAK H, KUROIWA K, PUCAR D, CHEN H, KATTAN M and SCARDINO P (2018) COMPARISON OF ENDORECTAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, GUIDED PROSTATE BIOPSY AND DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION IN THE PREOPERATIVE ANATOMICAL LOCALIZATION OF PROSTATE CANCERJournal of Urology, VOL. 174, NO. 6, (2158-2163), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2005.YUEN J, THNG C, TAN P, KHIN L, PHEE S, XIAO D, LAU W, NG W and CHENG C (2018) ENDORECTAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING AND SPECTROSCOPY FOR THE DETECTION OF TUMOR FOCI IN MEN WITH PRIOR NEGATIVE TRANSRECTAL ULTRASOUND PROSTATE BIOPSYJournal of Urology, VOL. 171, NO. 4, (1482-1486), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2004.REVELO M, COOKSON M, CHANG S, SHOOK M, SMITH J and SHAPPELL S (2018) Incidence and Location of Prostate and Urothelial Carcinoma in Prostates From Cystoprostatectomies: Implications for Possible Apical Sparing SurgeryJournal of Urology, VOL. 171, NO. 2, (646-651), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2004.COAKLEY F, QAYYUM A and KURHANEWICZ J (2018) Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Spectroscopic Imaging of Prostate CancerJournal of Urology, VOL. 170, NO. 6S, (S69-S76), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2003.GORE J, SHARIAT S, MILES B, KADMON D, JIANG N, WHEELER T and SLAWIN K (2018) OPTIMAL COMBINATIONS OF SYSTEMATIC SEXTANT AND LATERALLY DIRECTED BIOPSIES FOR THE DETECTION OF PROSTATE CANCERJournal of Urology, VOL. 165, NO. 5, (1554-1559), Online publication date: 1-May-2001. Volume 164Issue 2August 2000Page: 400-404 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2000 by American Urological Association, Inc.Keywordsbiopsy, needleprostatic neoplasmsprostatemagnetic resonance imagingMetricsAuthor Information A.E. WEFER More articles by this author H. HRICAK More articles by this author D.B. VIGNERON Financial and/or other relationship with GE Medical Systems. More articles by this author F.V. COAKLEY More articles by this author Y. LU More articles by this author J. WEFER More articles by this author U. MUELLER-LISSE More articles by this author P.R. CARROLL More articles by this author J. KURHANEWICZ Financial and/or other relationship with GE Medical Systems. More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...