File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Preoperative detection of prostate cancer: A comparison with 11C-choline PET, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET and MR imaging

TitlePreoperative detection of prostate cancer: A comparison with <sup>11</sup>C-choline PET, <sup>18</sup>F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET and MR imaging
Authors
KeywordsCholine
Fluorodeoxyglucose
MRI
Positron-emission tomography
Prostatic neoplasms
Issue Date2010
Citation
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 2010, v. 31, n. 5, p. 1151-1156 How to Cite?
AbstractPurpose: To compare 11C-choline positron emission tomography (C-PET), 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET (FDG-PET), and MR imaging in the preoperative detection of prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: C-PET, FDG-PET, and MR images were obtained in 43 consecutive patients with suspected prostate cancer, and prostate cancers were histopathologically confirmed in 26 patients. Unenhanced T1-weighted, T2-weighted, and gadolinium-enhanced MR images were obtained. C-PET and FDG-PET were conducted 1.5 and 60 minutes after injection of 5.5 and 5.0 MBq/kg tracers, respectively. A nuclear and a genitourinary radiologist retrospectively reviewed PET and MR images at random, respectively, and assigned a confidence level for the presence of prostate cancer using a four-point scale. Diagnostic performance was tested using the McNemar test and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Results: The sensitivity was greater (P < 0.05) with MR (88%) and C-PET (73%) images than with FDG-PET images (31%). The accuracy was greater (P < 0.05) with MR images (88%) than with C-PET (67%) and FDG-PET (53%) images. The area-under-curve value with MR (0.90) was greater than those with C-PET (0.53) and FDG-PET (0.54) images (P < 0.01). Conclusion: MR imaging should be primarily performed in the preoperative detection of prostate cancer. C-PET and FDG-PET did not improve the detection. © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/316035
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 3.3
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.339
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWatanabe, Haruo-
dc.contributor.authorKanematsu, Masayuki-
dc.contributor.authorKondo, Hiroshi-
dc.contributor.authorKako, Nobuo-
dc.contributor.authorYamamoto, Naoki-
dc.contributor.authorYamada, Toru-
dc.contributor.authorGoshima, Satoshi-
dc.contributor.authorHoshi, Hiroaki-
dc.contributor.authorBae, Kyongtae T.-
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-24T15:49:01Z-
dc.date.available2022-08-24T15:49:01Z-
dc.date.issued2010-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 2010, v. 31, n. 5, p. 1151-1156-
dc.identifier.issn1053-1807-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/316035-
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To compare 11C-choline positron emission tomography (C-PET), 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET (FDG-PET), and MR imaging in the preoperative detection of prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: C-PET, FDG-PET, and MR images were obtained in 43 consecutive patients with suspected prostate cancer, and prostate cancers were histopathologically confirmed in 26 patients. Unenhanced T1-weighted, T2-weighted, and gadolinium-enhanced MR images were obtained. C-PET and FDG-PET were conducted 1.5 and 60 minutes after injection of 5.5 and 5.0 MBq/kg tracers, respectively. A nuclear and a genitourinary radiologist retrospectively reviewed PET and MR images at random, respectively, and assigned a confidence level for the presence of prostate cancer using a four-point scale. Diagnostic performance was tested using the McNemar test and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Results: The sensitivity was greater (P < 0.05) with MR (88%) and C-PET (73%) images than with FDG-PET images (31%). The accuracy was greater (P < 0.05) with MR images (88%) than with C-PET (67%) and FDG-PET (53%) images. The area-under-curve value with MR (0.90) was greater than those with C-PET (0.53) and FDG-PET (0.54) images (P < 0.01). Conclusion: MR imaging should be primarily performed in the preoperative detection of prostate cancer. C-PET and FDG-PET did not improve the detection. © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-
dc.subjectCholine-
dc.subjectFluorodeoxyglucose-
dc.subjectMRI-
dc.subjectPositron-emission tomography-
dc.subjectProstatic neoplasms-
dc.titlePreoperative detection of prostate cancer: A comparison with <sup>11</sup>C-choline PET, <sup>18</sup>F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET and MR imaging-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/jmri.22157-
dc.identifier.pmid20432351-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-77951523556-
dc.identifier.volume31-
dc.identifier.issue5-
dc.identifier.spage1151-
dc.identifier.epage1156-
dc.identifier.eissn1522-2586-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000277397100015-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats