A comparison of transrectal ultrasonography and endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in the local staging of prostatic carcinoma

Abstract

Objective To compare the staging accuracy of transResults Endorectal coil MRI was more sensitive than TRUS for detecting both ECE, SVI and the site of ECE rectal ultrasonography (TRUS) and endorectal magnetic resonance imaging (eMRI) for organ-confined involvement in organ-confined prostatic carcinoma. TRUS was more accurate than eMRI for detecting the prostatic carcinoma. Patients and methods Twenty-five patients with clinisite of SVI involvement. However, the overall staging accuracy rates for both imaging modalities were equal. cally confined prostatic adenocarcinoma were evaluated to be candidates for radical prostatectomy. AllConclusions Neither TRUS nor eMRI was significantly better than the other for determining the local extent underwent TRUS and eMRI before surgery. Imaging findings evaluated prospectively in each patient of prostatic carcinoma. Therefore, TRUS should be the study of choice until MRI technology improves suBcwere extracapsular extension (ECE), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) and the site of involvement. The results iently in the preoperative staging of localized prostate cancer. of the imaging techniques were compared with the histopathological findings. As two patients with Keywords Prostate cancer, transrectal ultrasonography, MRI, staging, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy metastatic lymph nodes (detected on frozen-section examination during surgery) were spared radical prostatectomy, the final evaluation included 23 patients.localized prostate cancer [5][6][7]. In an eCort to establish

Application of Prostate US for Advanced Techniques in Prostate Biopsy and Prostate Cancer Staging

“…Ekici et al compared the staging accuracy between TRUS and endorectal coil MRI in 25 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy [ 37 ]. MRI was more sensitive in detecting ECE and SVI, while TRUS was more accurate in detecting the site of the seminal vesicles.…”

Three-dimensional 1H-magnetic resonance spectroscopy of the prostate in clinical practice: technique and results in patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen and negative or no previous prostate biopsies

“…MRI of the prostate is not routinely used in the diagnostics of prostate cancer, but rather for staging, especially for the differentiation between T2 and T3 tumours. In this field, MRI of the prostate seems to be superior to transrectal ultrasound, but this is still controversially discussed [14][15][16][17]. Spectroscopy of the prostate, due to long examination times, has up to now mainly been used in a scientific manner and has been shown to improve the sensitivity and specificity of diagnoses based on MRI of the prostate, especially for less experienced readers [18].…”

Does body‐coil magnetic‐resonance imaging have a role in the preoperative staging of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer?

“…Endorectal-coil MRI is reported to be the most sensitive investigation for detecting extracapsular extension [8]. A recent metaanalysis combining over 70 articles reported its sensitivity as 71% and specificity as 74% [10].…”

“…Differentiating between T2 and T3 disease before RRP is imperative if positive margins are to be minimized [8]. Accurate information about capsular penetration allows patients to be adequately counselled and treatment protocols modified.…”