4.5 Article

The Incremental Value of Contrast-Enhanced MRI in the Detection of Biopsy-Proven Local Recurrence of Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy: Effect of Reader Experience

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY
卷 199, 期 2, 页码 360-366

出版社

AMER ROENTGEN RAY SOC
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.11.6923

关键词

contrast-enhanced MRI; locally recurrent prostate cancer; MRI; prostate cancer; prostatectomy

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [RO1-CA076423]
  2. Peter Michael Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to retrospectively assess the incremental value of contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) to T2-weighted MRI in the detection of postsurgical local recurrence of prostate cancer by readers of different experience levels, using biopsy as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Fifty-two men with biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy underwent 1.5-T endorectal MRI with multiphase contrast-enhanced imaging and had biopsy within 3 months of MRI. Two radiologists (reader 1 had 1 year and reader 2 had 6 years of experience) independently reviewed each MRI study and classified the likelihood of recurrent cancer on a 5-point scale. Areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (A(z)) were calculated to assess readers' diagnostic performance with T2-weighted MRI alone and combined with CE-MRI. Interobserver agreement was assessed using Cohen kappa statistics. RESULTS. Thirty-three patients (63%) had biopsy-proven local recurrence of prostate cancer. With the addition of CE-MRI to T2-weighted imaging, the A(z) for cancer detection increased significantly for reader 1 (0.77 vs 0.85; p = 0.0435) but not for reader 2 (0.86 vs 0.88; p = 0.7294). The use of CE-MRI improved interobserver agreement from fair (kappa = 0.39) to moderate (kappa = 0.58). CONCLUSION. CE-MRI increased interobserver agreement and offered incremental value to T2-weighted MRI in the detection of locally recurrent prostate cancer for the relatively inexperienced reader.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据