Prostate cancer: Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging - Distinction of true-positive results from chance-detected lesions

Jeffrey J. Hom, Fergus Coakley, Jeffry P. Simko, Aliya Qayyum, Ying Lu, Lars Schmitt, Peter R. Carroll, John Kurhanewicz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

35 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To retrospectively investigate size criteria for the identification of chance-detected lesions at endorectal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging of prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Approval of the committee on human research and written informed consent were obtained. This study was HIPAA compliant. Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging were performed with a 1.5-T MR imager in 48 men with a mean age of 59 years (age range, 47-75 years) Prior to radical prostatectomy. Two independent readers recorded the size and location of all suspected peripheral zone tumor nodules on MR images alone and on images obtained with combined MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging. Nodules detected at MR imaging were classified as matched lesions if tumor was present in the same location at step-section histopathologic review. For all matched lesions, κ values were calculated to examine agreement between measured and actual tumor size. Lesions that were overmeasured at MR imaging with a κ value of less than 0.2 were considered chance-detected lesions. Results: At MR imaging, two of 27 and four of 35 matched lesions for readers 1 and 2, respectively, were chance-detected lesions. The corresponding numbers of lesions at combined MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging were one of 21 and one 31, respectively. In all but two cases, the measured diameter of chance-detected lesions was more than twice that of the diameter at histopathologic analysis. By using this diameter threshold to distinguish tree-positive results, the mean diameter of detected tumors at histopathologic analysis was 15 mm compared with 4 mm for both undetected and chance-detected tumors (P <.05). Conclusion: To ensure uniformity in the comparison of scientific studies, peripheral zone tumors detected at MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging of the prostate that are in the same location as tumors detected at histopathologic review should be considered chance-detected lesions if the MR transverse diameter is more than twice the histopathologic transverse diameter.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)192-199
Number of pages8
JournalRadiology
Volume238
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2006
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Prostatic Neoplasms
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Neoplasms
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
Prostatectomy
Informed Consent
Prostate

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Prostate cancer : Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging - Distinction of true-positive results from chance-detected lesions. / Hom, Jeffrey J.; Coakley, Fergus; Simko, Jeffry P.; Qayyum, Aliya; Lu, Ying; Schmitt, Lars; Carroll, Peter R.; Kurhanewicz, John.

In: Radiology, Vol. 238, No. 1, 01.2006, p. 192-199.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hom, Jeffrey J. ; Coakley, Fergus ; Simko, Jeffry P. ; Qayyum, Aliya ; Lu, Ying ; Schmitt, Lars ; Carroll, Peter R. ; Kurhanewicz, John. / Prostate cancer : Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging - Distinction of true-positive results from chance-detected lesions. In: Radiology. 2006 ; Vol. 238, No. 1. pp. 192-199.
@article{d85f5b45cc7e44ab83147fd243a67311,
title = "Prostate cancer: Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging - Distinction of true-positive results from chance-detected lesions",
abstract = "Purpose: To retrospectively investigate size criteria for the identification of chance-detected lesions at endorectal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging of prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Approval of the committee on human research and written informed consent were obtained. This study was HIPAA compliant. Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging were performed with a 1.5-T MR imager in 48 men with a mean age of 59 years (age range, 47-75 years) Prior to radical prostatectomy. Two independent readers recorded the size and location of all suspected peripheral zone tumor nodules on MR images alone and on images obtained with combined MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging. Nodules detected at MR imaging were classified as matched lesions if tumor was present in the same location at step-section histopathologic review. For all matched lesions, κ values were calculated to examine agreement between measured and actual tumor size. Lesions that were overmeasured at MR imaging with a κ value of less than 0.2 were considered chance-detected lesions. Results: At MR imaging, two of 27 and four of 35 matched lesions for readers 1 and 2, respectively, were chance-detected lesions. The corresponding numbers of lesions at combined MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging were one of 21 and one 31, respectively. In all but two cases, the measured diameter of chance-detected lesions was more than twice that of the diameter at histopathologic analysis. By using this diameter threshold to distinguish tree-positive results, the mean diameter of detected tumors at histopathologic analysis was 15 mm compared with 4 mm for both undetected and chance-detected tumors (P <.05). Conclusion: To ensure uniformity in the comparison of scientific studies, peripheral zone tumors detected at MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging of the prostate that are in the same location as tumors detected at histopathologic review should be considered chance-detected lesions if the MR transverse diameter is more than twice the histopathologic transverse diameter.",
author = "Hom, {Jeffrey J.} and Fergus Coakley and Simko, {Jeffry P.} and Aliya Qayyum and Ying Lu and Lars Schmitt and Carroll, {Peter R.} and John Kurhanewicz",
year = "2006",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1148/radiol.2381041675",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "238",
pages = "192--199",
journal = "Radiology",
issn = "0033-8419",
publisher = "Radiological Society of North America Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prostate cancer

T2 - Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging - Distinction of true-positive results from chance-detected lesions

AU - Hom, Jeffrey J.

AU - Coakley, Fergus

AU - Simko, Jeffry P.

AU - Qayyum, Aliya

AU - Lu, Ying

AU - Schmitt, Lars

AU - Carroll, Peter R.

AU - Kurhanewicz, John

PY - 2006/1

Y1 - 2006/1

N2 - Purpose: To retrospectively investigate size criteria for the identification of chance-detected lesions at endorectal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging of prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Approval of the committee on human research and written informed consent were obtained. This study was HIPAA compliant. Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging were performed with a 1.5-T MR imager in 48 men with a mean age of 59 years (age range, 47-75 years) Prior to radical prostatectomy. Two independent readers recorded the size and location of all suspected peripheral zone tumor nodules on MR images alone and on images obtained with combined MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging. Nodules detected at MR imaging were classified as matched lesions if tumor was present in the same location at step-section histopathologic review. For all matched lesions, κ values were calculated to examine agreement between measured and actual tumor size. Lesions that were overmeasured at MR imaging with a κ value of less than 0.2 were considered chance-detected lesions. Results: At MR imaging, two of 27 and four of 35 matched lesions for readers 1 and 2, respectively, were chance-detected lesions. The corresponding numbers of lesions at combined MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging were one of 21 and one 31, respectively. In all but two cases, the measured diameter of chance-detected lesions was more than twice that of the diameter at histopathologic analysis. By using this diameter threshold to distinguish tree-positive results, the mean diameter of detected tumors at histopathologic analysis was 15 mm compared with 4 mm for both undetected and chance-detected tumors (P <.05). Conclusion: To ensure uniformity in the comparison of scientific studies, peripheral zone tumors detected at MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging of the prostate that are in the same location as tumors detected at histopathologic review should be considered chance-detected lesions if the MR transverse diameter is more than twice the histopathologic transverse diameter.

AB - Purpose: To retrospectively investigate size criteria for the identification of chance-detected lesions at endorectal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging of prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Approval of the committee on human research and written informed consent were obtained. This study was HIPAA compliant. Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging were performed with a 1.5-T MR imager in 48 men with a mean age of 59 years (age range, 47-75 years) Prior to radical prostatectomy. Two independent readers recorded the size and location of all suspected peripheral zone tumor nodules on MR images alone and on images obtained with combined MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging. Nodules detected at MR imaging were classified as matched lesions if tumor was present in the same location at step-section histopathologic review. For all matched lesions, κ values were calculated to examine agreement between measured and actual tumor size. Lesions that were overmeasured at MR imaging with a κ value of less than 0.2 were considered chance-detected lesions. Results: At MR imaging, two of 27 and four of 35 matched lesions for readers 1 and 2, respectively, were chance-detected lesions. The corresponding numbers of lesions at combined MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging were one of 21 and one 31, respectively. In all but two cases, the measured diameter of chance-detected lesions was more than twice that of the diameter at histopathologic analysis. By using this diameter threshold to distinguish tree-positive results, the mean diameter of detected tumors at histopathologic analysis was 15 mm compared with 4 mm for both undetected and chance-detected tumors (P <.05). Conclusion: To ensure uniformity in the comparison of scientific studies, peripheral zone tumors detected at MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging of the prostate that are in the same location as tumors detected at histopathologic review should be considered chance-detected lesions if the MR transverse diameter is more than twice the histopathologic transverse diameter.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=29444455484&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=29444455484&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1148/radiol.2381041675

DO - 10.1148/radiol.2381041675

M3 - Article

C2 - 16373767

AN - SCOPUS:29444455484

VL - 238

SP - 192

EP - 199

JO - Radiology

JF - Radiology

SN - 0033-8419

IS - 1

ER -