Minireviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Clin Urol. Mar 24, 2015; 4(1): 56-63
Published online Mar 24, 2015. doi: 10.5410/wjcu.v4.i1.56
Table 2 Accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of predicting extracapsular extension by magnetic resonance imaging
Ref.Imaging technologyTeslanAccuracySensitivitySpecificityComment
Bloch et al[17]T2w imaging combined with dynamic contrast enhancement1.53295%86%96%Determination of ECE increased by 25% with addition of DCE
Chandra et al[30]T2w imaging with ER-MRI1.538766982
Fütterer et al[18]T2w imaging with pelvic phased array and T2w imaging with endorectal coil1.58176-83 ER-PPA 61-63 PPA47-63 ER-PPA 43-60 PPA96 ER-PPA 70-72 PPASingle reader with conscious readers bc/de?
Park et al[31]3.0 T2w pelvic phase array vs er MRI3.0 vs 1.5108 (54 in each group)72 3T vs 70 1.5T1.5-T 71% 3.0-T 81%1.5-T 73% 3.0-T 67%The 3.0-T MRI had a lower incidence of MR artifacts than the 1.5-T MRI (P < 0.05). However, overall imaging quality at both 3.0 and 1.5 T had no significant difference
Zhang et al[32]MRI with endorectal and pelvic multicoil array1.5110915599
Tan et al[33]T2w- with ERC1.532591494
Nepple et al[20]ER-MRI1.594701488
Bloch et al[34]T2w imaging with fast spin echo and DCE3.010886 (80%-91%)75 (64%-83%)92 (88%-95%)NPV/PPV:79/91 Stratified by reader experience
Latcham-setty et al[16]ER-MRI8053-7331-6471-78First 40 and second 40. Concluded that experience increases accuracy
Beyer- sdorff et al[35]T2w ER-MRI vs T2w imaging with torso-array1.5 vs 3.02273% (both)1.5T; Extended continugity with capsule-100; Smooth bulging-80; Irregular bulging-80; Direct periprostatic infiltration-20; Asymmetry of NVB-20; Displacement of rectoprostatic angle-0 3-T; Extended continugity with capsule-100; Smooth bulging-60; Irregular bulging-40; Direct periprostatic infiltration-20; Asymmetry of NVB-40; Displacement of rectoprostatic angle-201.5T; Extended continuity with capsule-23; Smooth bulging-39; Irregular bulging-50; Direct periprostatic infiltration-83; Asymmetry of NVB-83; Displacement of rectoprostatic angle-100 3-T; Extended continuity with capsule-50; Smooth bulging-44; Irregular bulging-56; Direct periprostatic infiltration-72; Asymmetry of NVB-67; Displacement of rectoprostatic angle-89Determined that image quality and tumor delineation was better with 1.5T2w ER-MRI
Lee et al[36]ERC vs pelvic phased array1.547 ERC vs 44 PPA6432 ERC vs 30 PPA96 ERC vs 90 PPA
Hegde et al[19]T2w multiparametric ER-MRI-T2w, T1w, DCE and DW3.0118752891Presence of a T3 lesion on final pathology was associated with T3 on MRI or higher Gleason score (8-10)
Kim et al[24]T2w pelvic array MRI vs T2w imaging ER-MRI1.5 vs 3.0151 63 ER-MRI vs 88 pelvic phase array61.4 PPA 63.4 ERC31 PPA 33 ERC98 PPA 97 ERC
Tanaka et al[22]T2w pelvic phase array3.067-6086Specifically mention they did not use an ER-MRI
Roethke et al[21]T2w imaging with ER-MRI1.5385764292Overstaging occurred in 5.7% and under staged in 17.9% 91.8% sens/41.5%spec in predicting T2 disease dropped to 40.7%sen/92.9%spec for cT3