Sextant localization of prostate cancer: comparison of sextant biopsy, magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging with step section histology.

PURPOSE We compared the accuracy of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging with that of sextant biopsy for the sextant localization of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS Sextant biopsy, MRI, magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging and radical prostatectomy with step section histology were done in 47 patients with prostate cancer. For each sextant we categorized biopsy and imaging results as positive or negative for cancer. Step section histology was used as the standard of reference. RESULTS For sextant localization of prostate cancer MRI and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging were more sensitive but less specific than biopsy (67% and 76% versus 50%, and 69% and 68% versus 82%, respectively). The sensitivity of sextant biopsy was significantly less in the prostate apex than in the mid prostate or prostate base (38% versus 52% and 62%, respectively). MRI and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging had similar efficacy throughout the prostate compared with biopsy only as well as better sensitivity and specificity in the prostate apex (60% and 75%, and 86% and 68%, respectively). A positive biopsy or imaging result had 94% sensitivity for cancer and concordant positivity by all 3 tests was highly specific at 98%. CONCLUSIONS Overall MRI and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging have accuracy similar to biopsy for intraprostatic localization of cancer and they are more accurate than biopsy in the prostate apex. These 2 imaging modalities may supplement biopsy results by increasing physician confidence when evaluating intraprostatic tumor location, which may be important for planning disease targeted therapy.

[1]  S. T. Buckland,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap. , 1994 .

[2]  Jean-Jacques Patard,et al.  Value of Ultrasound-Guided Systematic Sextant Biopsies in Prostate Tumor Mapping , 1999, European Urology.

[3]  Simultaneous comparison of sensitivity and specificity of two tests in the paired design: a straightforward graphical approach , 2001, Statistics in medicine.

[4]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Anatomic site-specific positive margins in organ-confined prostate cancer and its impact on outcome after radical prostatectomy. , 1997, Urology.

[5]  K. Nielsen,et al.  Accuracy in Core Biopsy of the Prostate , 1986 .

[6]  P. Carroll,et al.  Focal therapy for prostate cancer 1996: maximizing outcome. , 1997, Urology.

[7]  John T. Wei,et al.  The influence of prostate size on cancer detection. , 1995, Urology.

[8]  C. Öbek,et al.  Comparison of digital rectal examination and biopsy results with the radical prostatectomy specimen. , 1999, The Journal of urology.

[9]  K. Shinohara,et al.  Transrectal ultrasound guided prostatic nerve blockade eases systematic needle biopsy of the prostate. , 1996, The Journal of urology.

[10]  P. Carroll,et al.  Prostate cancer: localization with three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging--clinicopathologic study. , 1999, Radiology.

[11]  K. Shinohara,et al.  Prospective evaluation of lateral biopsies of the peripheral zone for prostate cancer detection. , 1998, The Journal of urology.

[12]  R Alagappan,et al.  Detection of extracapsular extension of prostate carcinoma with endorectal and phased-array coil MR imaging: multivariate feature analysis. , 1997, Radiology.

[13]  P. Carroll,et al.  Three-dimensional H-1 MR spectroscopic imaging of the in situ human prostate with high (0.24-0.7-cm3) spatial resolution. , 1996, Radiology.

[14]  C. Bangma,et al.  Repeat screening for prostate cancer after 1-year followup in 984 biopsied men: clinical and pathological features of detected cancer. , 1998, The Journal of urology.