A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

MRI of the Prostate With and Without Endorectal Coil at 3 T: Correlation With Whole-Mount Histopathologic Gleason Score. | LitMetric

The purpose of this article is to prospectively compare image quality and diagnostic accuracy of clinically significant prostate cancer with and without endorectal coil (ERC) at 3 T using a combination of T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI. Twenty-three patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer underwent MRI with and without ERC at the same visit. Patients subsequently underwent radical prostatectomy. Specimens were assessed by whole-mount histopathologic examination. Two radiologists reviewed MR images for image quality (5-point scale) and disease using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems version 2 (PI-RADSv2). Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the ROC curve (AUC) were calculated with and without ERC. Additionally, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) was correlated with Gleason score and ADC values of each lesion were compared with and without ERC. Image quality was comparable with and without ERC (3.8 vs 3.5). Twenty-nine cancer foci larger than 0.5 cm in diameter were found in 23 patients on histopathologic examination; 18 tumors had a Gleason score of 7 or greater. Two radiologists recorded AUC for tumors with a Gleason score of 7 or greater as 0.96 and 0.96 with ERC and 0.88 and 0.91 without ERC. All 13 tumors with a Gleason score of 3 + 4 were detected with ERC, but only 9 were detected without ERC. One of five tumors with Gleason scores less than 3 + 4 was missed with and without ERC. ADC significantly correlated with Gleason score. There was no significant difference in the ADC of a lesion on MRI with and without an ERC. MRI with and without ERC was equally accurate at showing prostate cancers with Gleason scores of 4 + 3 or greater. However, MRI with ERC was superior at showing cancer with a Gleason score of 3 + 4. There was no significant difference in ADC values between scores acquired with or without an ERC.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.19.22094DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

gleason score
28
mri erc
16
tumors gleason
16
erc
14
image quality
12
gleason
9
endorectal coil
8
whole-mount histopathologic
8
prostate cancer
8
histopathologic examination
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!