Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
: 20 | 50 | 100
1 - 5 de 5
1.
Clin Radiol ; 75(2): 157.e1-157.e7, 2020 02.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31690449

AIM: To report prostate cancer (PCa) prevalence in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) categories and investigate the potential to avoid unnecessary, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided in-bore biopsies by adding clinical and biochemical patient characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present institutional review board-approved, prospective study on 137 consecutive men with 178 suspicious lesions on 3 T MRI was performed. Routine data collected for each patient included patient characteristics (age, prostate volume), clinical background information (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] levels, PSA density), and PI-RADS v2 scores assigned in a double-reading approach. RESULTS: Histopathological evaluation revealed a total of 93/178 PCa (52.2%). The mean age was 66.3 years and PSA density was 0.24 ng/ml2 (range, 0.04-0.89 ng/ml). Clinically significant PCa (csPCa, Gleason score >6) was confirmed in 50/93 (53.8%) lesions and was significantly associated with higher PI-RADS v2 scores (p=0.0044). On logistic regression analyses, age, PSA density, and PI-RADS v2 scores contributed independently to the diagnosis of csPCa (p=7.9×10-7, p=0.097, and p=0.024, respectively). The resulting area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to predict csPCa was 0.76 for PI-RADS v2, 0.59 for age, and 0.67 for PSA density. The combined regression model yielded an AUC of 0.84 for the diagnosis of csPCa and was significantly superior to each single parameter (p≤0.0009, respectively). Unnecessary biopsies could have been avoided in 50% (64/128) while only 4% (2/50) of csPCa lesions would have been missed. CONCLUSIONS: Adding age and PSA density to PI-RADS v2 scores improves the diagnostic accuracy for csPCa. A combination of these variables with PI-RADS v2 can help to avoid unnecessary in-bore biopsies while still detecting the majority of csPCa.


Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnosis , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Humans , Image-Guided Biopsy/methods , Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Grading , Prostate/diagnostic imaging , Prostate/pathology , Prostate-Specific Antigen/blood , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology
2.
Radiologe ; 59(6): 503-509, 2019 Jun.
Article De | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31037321

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) is currently the most accurate imaging modality for detection and local staging of prostate cancer (PCa). Disadvantages of this modality are high costs, time consumption and the need for a contrast medium. AIMS: The aim of the work was to provide an overview of the current state of fast and contrast-free MRI imaging of the prostate. RESULTS: Biparametric examination protocols and the use of three-dimensional T2-weighted sequences are readily available methods that can be used to shorten the examination time without sacrificing diagnostic accuracy.


Prostatic Neoplasms , Humans , Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Male , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging
3.
Phys Med Biol ; 61(14): 5198-214, 2016 07 21.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27351242

In radiotherapy, the use of multi-modal images can improve tumor and target volume delineation. Images acquired at different times by different modalities need to be aligned into a single coordinate system by 3D/3D registration. State of the art methods for validation of registration are visual inspection by experts and fiducial-based evaluation. Visual inspection is a qualitative, subjective measure, while fiducial markers sometimes suffer from limited clinical acceptance. In this paper we present an automatic, non-invasive method for assessing the quality of intensity-based multi-modal rigid registration using feature detectors. After registration, interest points are identified on both image data sets using either speeded-up robust features or Harris feature detectors. The quality of the registration is defined by the mean Euclidean distance between matching interest point pairs. The method was evaluated on three multi-modal datasets: an ex vivo porcine skull (CT, CBCT, MR), seven in vivo brain cases (CT, MR) and 25 in vivo lung cases (CT, CBCT). Both a qualitative (visual inspection by radiation oncologist) and a quantitative (mean target registration error-mTRE-based on selected markers) method were employed. In the porcine skull dataset, the manual and Harris detectors give comparable results but both overestimated the gold standard mTRE based on fiducial markers. For instance, for CT-MR-T1 registration, the mTREman (based on manually annotated landmarks) was 2.2 mm whereas mTREHarris (based on landmarks found by the Harris detector) was 4.1 mm, and mTRESURF (based on landmarks found by the SURF detector) was 8 mm. In lung cases, the difference between mTREman and mTREHarris was less than 1 mm, while the difference between mTREman and mTRESURF was up to 3 mm. The Harris detector performed better than the SURF detector with a resulting estimated registration error close to the gold standard. Therefore the Harris detector was shown to be the more suitable method to automatically quantify the geometric accuracy of multimodal rigid registration.


Algorithms , Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted/methods , Lung Neoplasms/pathology , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods , Pattern Recognition, Automated/methods , Skull/anatomy & histology , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , Animals , Lung Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Multimodal Imaging/methods , Retrospective Studies , Skull/diagnostic imaging , Swine
4.
Rofo ; 186(5): 501-7, 2014 May.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24497092

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the detection rate of prostate cancer (PCa) after magnetic resonance-guided biopsy (MRGB); to monitor the patient cohort with negative MRGB results and to compare our own results with other reports in the current literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A group of 41 patients was included in this IRB-approved study and subjected to combined MRI and MRGB. MRGB was performed in a closed 1.5 T MR unit and the needle was inserted rectally. The follow-up period ranged between 12 and 62 months (mean 3.1 years). To compare the results with the literature, a systematic literature search was performed. Eighteen publications were evaluated. RESULTS: The cancer-suspicious regions were punctured successfully in all cases. PCa was detected in eleven patients (26.9 %) who were all clinically significant. MRGB showed a benign histology in the remaining 30 patients. In the follow-up (mean 3.1 years) of patients with benign histology, no new PCa was diagnosed. The missed cancer rate during follow-up was 0.0 % in our study. CONCLUSION: MRGB is effective for the detection of clinically significant cancer, and this is in accordance with the recent literature. In the follow-up of patients with benign histology, no new PCa was discovered. Although the probability of developing PCa after negative MRGB is very low, active surveillance is reasonable.


Image-Guided Biopsy/methods , Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Interventional/methods , Prostate/pathology , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Adult , Aged , Austria , Diagnosis, Differential , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prostatic Hyperplasia/pathology , Retrospective Studies , Sensitivity and Specificity
...