Endorectal MRI after radiation therapy

Questioning the sextant analysis

Shilpa R. Kumbhani, Fergus Coakley, Charles E. McCulloch, Z. Jane Wang, John Kurhanewicz, MacK Roach, Antonio C. Westphalen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate whether the information gained by three coregistration systems (sextant, hemi-prostate, and whole gland) differs significantly, suggesting that one approach should be routinely favored over the others. Despite its known limitations, sextant is the generally accepted standard for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and biopsy coregistration; nevertheless, depending on the magnitude of localization errors, other options may be adequate. Materials and Methods: Institutional Review Board approval was obtained and the study was Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant. We identified 70 patients who underwent 1.5 T endorectal MRI of the prostate between 1999 and 2008 after external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. A single reader reviewed all T2-weighted images for the presence or absence of tumor. The performance of each approach was quantified using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Transrectal ultrasound-guided sextant biopsies were used as a standard of reference. Results: The areas under the ROC curve indicating accuracy for each MRI approach were 0.63 (sextant), 0.68 (hemi-prostate), and 0.71 (whole gland). There was no statistically significant difference among these approaches. Conclusion: As expected, the point estimate was higher for the whole-gland approach, but not significantly. Reliable assessment of locally recurrent prostate cancer after external beam radiotherapy by endorectal MRI may be made using a sextant, hemi-prostate, or whole gland approach. The option for one or another approach should not be solely based on estimations of imaging accuracy, but on the purpose of the procedure.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1086-1090
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Volume33
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Prostate
Radiotherapy
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
ROC Curve
Prostatic Neoplasms
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
Biopsy
Research Ethics Committees
Neoplasms

Keywords

  • localization
  • prostate cancer
  • sextant
  • T2-weighted MR imaging
  • transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Kumbhani, S. R., Coakley, F., McCulloch, C. E., Wang, Z. J., Kurhanewicz, J., Roach, M., & Westphalen, A. C. (2011). Endorectal MRI after radiation therapy: Questioning the sextant analysis. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 33(5), 1086-1090. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.22561

Endorectal MRI after radiation therapy : Questioning the sextant analysis. / Kumbhani, Shilpa R.; Coakley, Fergus; McCulloch, Charles E.; Wang, Z. Jane; Kurhanewicz, John; Roach, MacK; Westphalen, Antonio C.

In: Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Vol. 33, No. 5, 05.2011, p. 1086-1090.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kumbhani, SR, Coakley, F, McCulloch, CE, Wang, ZJ, Kurhanewicz, J, Roach, M & Westphalen, AC 2011, 'Endorectal MRI after radiation therapy: Questioning the sextant analysis', Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 1086-1090. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.22561
Kumbhani, Shilpa R. ; Coakley, Fergus ; McCulloch, Charles E. ; Wang, Z. Jane ; Kurhanewicz, John ; Roach, MacK ; Westphalen, Antonio C. / Endorectal MRI after radiation therapy : Questioning the sextant analysis. In: Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2011 ; Vol. 33, No. 5. pp. 1086-1090.
@article{c284824cb2384152a808fa774fbd3a84,
title = "Endorectal MRI after radiation therapy: Questioning the sextant analysis",
abstract = "Purpose: To evaluate whether the information gained by three coregistration systems (sextant, hemi-prostate, and whole gland) differs significantly, suggesting that one approach should be routinely favored over the others. Despite its known limitations, sextant is the generally accepted standard for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and biopsy coregistration; nevertheless, depending on the magnitude of localization errors, other options may be adequate. Materials and Methods: Institutional Review Board approval was obtained and the study was Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant. We identified 70 patients who underwent 1.5 T endorectal MRI of the prostate between 1999 and 2008 after external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. A single reader reviewed all T2-weighted images for the presence or absence of tumor. The performance of each approach was quantified using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Transrectal ultrasound-guided sextant biopsies were used as a standard of reference. Results: The areas under the ROC curve indicating accuracy for each MRI approach were 0.63 (sextant), 0.68 (hemi-prostate), and 0.71 (whole gland). There was no statistically significant difference among these approaches. Conclusion: As expected, the point estimate was higher for the whole-gland approach, but not significantly. Reliable assessment of locally recurrent prostate cancer after external beam radiotherapy by endorectal MRI may be made using a sextant, hemi-prostate, or whole gland approach. The option for one or another approach should not be solely based on estimations of imaging accuracy, but on the purpose of the procedure.",
keywords = "localization, prostate cancer, sextant, T2-weighted MR imaging, transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy",
author = "Kumbhani, {Shilpa R.} and Fergus Coakley and McCulloch, {Charles E.} and Wang, {Z. Jane} and John Kurhanewicz and MacK Roach and Westphalen, {Antonio C.}",
year = "2011",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1002/jmri.22561",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "33",
pages = "1086--1090",
journal = "Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging",
issn = "1053-1807",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Endorectal MRI after radiation therapy

T2 - Questioning the sextant analysis

AU - Kumbhani, Shilpa R.

AU - Coakley, Fergus

AU - McCulloch, Charles E.

AU - Wang, Z. Jane

AU - Kurhanewicz, John

AU - Roach, MacK

AU - Westphalen, Antonio C.

PY - 2011/5

Y1 - 2011/5

N2 - Purpose: To evaluate whether the information gained by three coregistration systems (sextant, hemi-prostate, and whole gland) differs significantly, suggesting that one approach should be routinely favored over the others. Despite its known limitations, sextant is the generally accepted standard for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and biopsy coregistration; nevertheless, depending on the magnitude of localization errors, other options may be adequate. Materials and Methods: Institutional Review Board approval was obtained and the study was Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant. We identified 70 patients who underwent 1.5 T endorectal MRI of the prostate between 1999 and 2008 after external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. A single reader reviewed all T2-weighted images for the presence or absence of tumor. The performance of each approach was quantified using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Transrectal ultrasound-guided sextant biopsies were used as a standard of reference. Results: The areas under the ROC curve indicating accuracy for each MRI approach were 0.63 (sextant), 0.68 (hemi-prostate), and 0.71 (whole gland). There was no statistically significant difference among these approaches. Conclusion: As expected, the point estimate was higher for the whole-gland approach, but not significantly. Reliable assessment of locally recurrent prostate cancer after external beam radiotherapy by endorectal MRI may be made using a sextant, hemi-prostate, or whole gland approach. The option for one or another approach should not be solely based on estimations of imaging accuracy, but on the purpose of the procedure.

AB - Purpose: To evaluate whether the information gained by three coregistration systems (sextant, hemi-prostate, and whole gland) differs significantly, suggesting that one approach should be routinely favored over the others. Despite its known limitations, sextant is the generally accepted standard for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and biopsy coregistration; nevertheless, depending on the magnitude of localization errors, other options may be adequate. Materials and Methods: Institutional Review Board approval was obtained and the study was Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant. We identified 70 patients who underwent 1.5 T endorectal MRI of the prostate between 1999 and 2008 after external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. A single reader reviewed all T2-weighted images for the presence or absence of tumor. The performance of each approach was quantified using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Transrectal ultrasound-guided sextant biopsies were used as a standard of reference. Results: The areas under the ROC curve indicating accuracy for each MRI approach were 0.63 (sextant), 0.68 (hemi-prostate), and 0.71 (whole gland). There was no statistically significant difference among these approaches. Conclusion: As expected, the point estimate was higher for the whole-gland approach, but not significantly. Reliable assessment of locally recurrent prostate cancer after external beam radiotherapy by endorectal MRI may be made using a sextant, hemi-prostate, or whole gland approach. The option for one or another approach should not be solely based on estimations of imaging accuracy, but on the purpose of the procedure.

KW - localization

KW - prostate cancer

KW - sextant

KW - T2-weighted MR imaging

KW - transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79955396141&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79955396141&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/jmri.22561

DO - 10.1002/jmri.22561

M3 - Article

VL - 33

SP - 1086

EP - 1090

JO - Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

JF - Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

SN - 1053-1807

IS - 5

ER -