52
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Multiparametric whole-body 3.0-T MRI in newly diagnosed intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer: diagnostic accuracy and interobserver agreement for nodal and metastatic staging

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          To determine the diagnostic accuracy and interobserver concordance of whole-body (WB)-MRI, vs. 99mTc bone scintigraphy (BS) and 18fluoro-ethyl-choline ( 18F-choline) PET/CT for the primary staging of intermediate/high-risk prostate cancer.

          Methods

          An institutional review board approved prospective cohort study carried out between July 2012 and November 2015, whereby 56 men prospectively underwent 3.0-T multiparametric (mp)-WB-MRI in addition to BS (all patients) ± 18F-choline PET/CT (33 patients). MRI comprised pre- and post-contrast modified Dixon (mDixon), T2-weighted (T2W) imaging, and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). Patients underwent follow-up mp-WB-MRI at 1 year to derive the reference standard. WB-MRIs were reviewed by two radiologists applying a 6-point scale and a locked sequential read (LSR) paradigm for the suspicion of nodal (N) and metastatic disease (M1a and M1b).

          Results

          The mean sensitivity/specificity of WB-MRI for N1 disease was 1.00/0.96 respectively, compared with 1.00/0.82 for 18F-choline PET/CT. The mean sensitivity and specificity of WB-MRI, 18F-choline PET/CT, and BS were 0.90/0.88, 0.80/0.92, and 0.60/1.00 for M1b disease. ROC-AUC did not show statistically significant improvement for each component of the LSR; mean ROC-AUC 0.92, 0.94, and 0.93 ( p < 0.05) for mDixon + DWI, + T2WI, and + contrast respectively. WB-MRI had an interobserver concordance ( κ) of 0.79, 0.68, and 0.58 for N1, M1a, and M1b diseases respectively.

          Conclusions

          WB-MRI provides high levels of diagnostic accuracy for both nodal and metastatic bone disease, with higher levels of sensitivity than BS for metastatic disease, and similar performance to 18F-choline PET/CT. T2 and post-contrast mDixon had no significant additive value above a protocol comprising mDixon and DWI alone.

          Key Points

          • A whole-body MRI protocol comprising unenhanced mDixon and diffusion-weighted imaging provides high levels of diagnostic accuracy for the primary staging of intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer.

          • The diagnostic accuracy of whole-body MRI is much higher than that of bone scintigraphy, as currently recommended for clinical use.

          • Staging using WB-MRI, rather than bone scintigraphy, could result in better patient stratification and treatment delivery than is currently provided to patients worldwide.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1007/s00330-018-5813-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

            A representation and interpretation of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve obtained by the "rating" method, or by mathematical predictions based on patient characteristics, is presented. It is shown that in such a setting the area represents the probability that a randomly chosen diseased subject is (correctly) rated or ranked with greater suspicion than a randomly chosen non-diseased subject. Moreover, this probability of a correct ranking is the same quantity that is estimated by the already well-studied nonparametric Wilcoxon statistic. These two relationships are exploited to (a) provide rapid closed-form expressions for the approximate magnitude of the sampling variability, i.e., standard error that one uses to accompany the area under a smoothed ROC curve, (b) guide in determining the size of the sample required to provide a sufficiently reliable estimate of this area, and (c) determine how large sample sizes should be to ensure that one can statistically detect differences in the accuracy of diagnostic techniques.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Index for rating diagnostic tests

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                0207 679 8156 , shonit.punwani@gmail.com
                Journal
                Eur Radiol
                Eur Radiol
                European Radiology
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                0938-7994
                1432-1084
                5 December 2018
                5 December 2018
                2019
                : 29
                : 6
                : 3159-3169
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000000121901201, GRID grid.83440.3b, UCL Centre for Medical Imaging, ; 2nd Floor Charles Bell House, 43 – 45 Foley Street, London, W1W 7TS UK
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0612 2754, GRID grid.439749.4, Medical Physics, , University College London Hospital, ; 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU UK
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0612 2754, GRID grid.439749.4, Department of Urology, , University College Hospital, ; 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU UK
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2113 8111, GRID grid.7445.2, Department of Urology, , Imperial College London, ; Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London, W6 8RF UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9865-0260
                Article
                5813
                10.1007/s00330-018-5813-4
                6510859
                30519933
                77ec0b10-1135-499c-8cd3-cdf0aa60b653
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                : 12 April 2018
                : 24 August 2018
                : 28 September 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: University College London (UCL)
                Categories
                Oncology
                Custom metadata
                © European Society of Radiology 2019

                Radiology & Imaging
                magnetic resonance imaging,prostate,choline,positron emission tomography
                Radiology & Imaging
                magnetic resonance imaging, prostate, choline, positron emission tomography

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content65

                Cited by19

                Most referenced authors452