European Radiology

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 761–769

Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 Tesla to assess local recurrence following radical prostatectomy using T2-weighted and contrast-enhanced imaging

Authors

    • Unit of RadiologyInstitute for Cancer Research and Treatment
  • Massimo Petracchini
    • Unit of RadiologyInstitute for Cancer Research and Treatment
  • Lorenza Scotti
    • Department of StatisticUniversity of Milano—Bicocca
  • Teresa Gallo
    • Unit of RadiologyInstitute for Cancer Research and Treatment
  • Annalisa Macera
    • Unit of RadiologyInstitute for Cancer Research and Treatment
  • Maria Cristina Bona
    • Unit of RadiotheraphyInstitute for Cancer Research and Treatment
  • Cinzia Ortega
    • Unit of OncologyInstitute for Cancer Research and Treatment
  • Pietro Gabriele
    • Unit of RadiotheraphyInstitute for Cancer Research and Treatment
  • Daniele Regge
    • Unit of RadiologyInstitute for Cancer Research and Treatment
Urogenital

DOI: 10.1007/s00330-008-1174-8

Cite this article as:
Cirillo, S., Petracchini, M., Scotti, L. et al. Eur Radiol (2009) 19: 761. doi:10.1007/s00330-008-1174-8

Abstract

To evaluate diagnostic performance of endorectal magnetic resonance (eMR) for diagnosing local recurrence of prostate cancer (PC) in patients with previous radical prostatectomy (RP) and to assess whether contrast-enhanced (CE)-eMR improved diagnostic accuracy in comparison to unenhanced study. Unenhanced eMR data of 72 male patients (mean of total PSA: 1.23 ± 1.3 ng/ml) with previous RP were interpreted retrospectively and classified either as normal or suspicious for local recurrence. All eMR examinations were re-evaluated also on CE-eMR 4 months after the first reading. Images were acquired on a 1.5-T system. These data were compared to the standard of reference for local recurrence: prostatectomy bed biopsy results; choline positron emission tomography results; PSA reduction or increase after pelvic radiotherapy; PSA modification during active surveillance. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive positive value, negative predictive value and accuracy were 61.4%, 82.1%, 84.4%, 57.5% and 69.4% for unenhanced eMR and 84.1%, 89.3%, 92.5%, 78.1% and 86.1% for CE-eMR. A statistically significant difference was found between accuracy and sensitivity of the two evaluations (χ2 = 5.33; p = 0.02 and χ2 = 9.00; p = 0.0027). EMR had great accuracy for visualizing local recurrence of PC after RP. CE-eMR improved diagnostic performance in comparison with T2-weighted imaging alone.

Keywords

Magnetic resonance imagingProstatic neoplasmProstatectomyLocal neoplasm recurrenceContrast media

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2008