본문으로 건너뛰기
← 뒤로

Impact of Endorectal Coil Use on Extraprostatic Extension Detection in Prostate MRI: A Retrospective Monocentric Study.

Academic radiology 2025 Vol.32(6) p. 3410-3420

Esengur OT, Yilmaz EC, Simon BD, Harmon SA, Gelikman DG, Lin Y, Belue MJ, Merino MJ, Gurram S, Wood BJ, Choyke PL, Pinto PA, Turkbey B

📝 환자 설명용 한 줄

[RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES] Accurate preoperative mpMRI-based detection of extraprostatic extension (EPE) in prostate cancer (PCa) is critical for surgical planning and patient outcomes.

🔬 핵심 임상 통계 (초록에서 자동 추출 — 원문 검증 권장)
  • 표본수 (n) 612
  • p-value p = 0.01
  • p-value p = 0.04
  • OR 5.63
  • Sensitivity 75%

이 논문을 인용하기

BibTeX ↓ RIS ↓
APA Esengur OT, Yilmaz EC, et al. (2025). Impact of Endorectal Coil Use on Extraprostatic Extension Detection in Prostate MRI: A Retrospective Monocentric Study.. Academic radiology, 32(6), 3410-3420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2024.12.056
MLA Esengur OT, et al.. "Impact of Endorectal Coil Use on Extraprostatic Extension Detection in Prostate MRI: A Retrospective Monocentric Study.." Academic radiology, vol. 32, no. 6, 2025, pp. 3410-3420.
PMID 39809601

Abstract

[RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES] Accurate preoperative mpMRI-based detection of extraprostatic extension (EPE) in prostate cancer (PCa) is critical for surgical planning and patient outcomes. This study aims to evaluate the impact of endorectal coil (ERC) use on the diagnostic performance of mpMRI in detecting EPE.

[MATERIALS AND METHODS] This retrospective study with prospectively collected data included participants who underwent mpMRI and subsequent radical prostatectomy for PCa between 2007 and 2024. Participants were divided based on ERC use on mpMRI: MRI without ERC and with ERC. Surgical pathology reports were used to determine the patients with pathologic EPE on whole-mount histopathology. One radiologist evaluated mpMRI using an in-house (National Cancer Institute [NCI]) EPE grading system. Logistic regression (LR) analyses were conducted to identify significant predictors of pathologic EPE, including ERC use and NCI EPE grades.

[RESULTS] 934 men (median age: 62 years [IQR = 57-67]) were included. For NCI EPE grade≥1, ERC MRI group (n = 612) had higher NPV (91% [320/353] vs. 83% [166/200], p = 0.01) and sensitivity (75% [101/134] vs. 62% [56/90], p = 0.04) compared to non-ERC group (n = 322). For NCI EPE grade = 3, ERC MRI group had higher NPV (83% [452/546] vs. 75% [221/294], p = 0.01) and accuracy (80% [492/612] vs. 74% [238/322], p = 0.03). In multivariable LR, higher NCI EPE grades were strong independent predictors of pathologic EPE, irrespective of ERC use (NCI EPE grade 2 with ERC: odds ratio [OR] = 2.01, p = 0.04; without ERC: OR = 5.63, p<0.001, NCI EPE grade 3 with ERC: OR = 4.53, p<0.001; without ERC: OR = 5.22, p = 0.002).

[CONCLUSION] ERC improves sensitivity, NPV, accuracy of EPE detection with mpMRI at different NCI EPE thresholds. NCI EPE grading system remains the stronger independent predictor of pathologic EPE regardless of ERC use.

MeSH Terms

Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Logistic Models; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Aged; Sensitivity and Specificity; Prostate; Prostatic Neoplasms; Patient Care Planning; Preoperative Care; Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Rectum; Predictive Value of Tests; Neoplasm Grading; Neoplasm Invasiveness

같은 제1저자의 인용 많은 논문 (1)