Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in staging early prostate cancer: Results of a multi-institutional cooperative trial

Matthew D. Rifkin, Elias A. Zerhouni, Constantine A. Gatsonis, Leslie E. Quint, David M. Paushter, Jonathan I. Epstein, Ulrike Hamper, Patrick C. Walsh, Barbara J. Mcneil

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background. In 1987, a cooperative study group consisting of five institutions was formed to determine the relative benefits of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endorectal (transrectal) ultrasonography in evaluating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer (stage Ta or Tb). Methods. Over a period of 15 months, 230 patients were entered into the study and evaluated with identical imaging techniques. We compared imaging results with information obtained at the time of surgery and on pathological analysis. Results. MRI correctly staged 77 percent of cases of advanced disease and 57 percent of cases of localized disease; the corresponding figures for ultrasonography were 66 and 46 percent (P not significant). These figures did not vary significantly between readers; moreover, simultaneous interpretation of MRI and ultrasound scans did not improve accuracy. In terms of detecting and localizing lesions, MRI identified only 60 percent of all malignant tumors measuring more than 5 mm on pathological analysis and ultrasonography identified only 59 percent. Conclusions. The MRI and ultrasonography equipment that is currently available is not highly accurate in staging early prostate cancer, mainly because neither technique has the ability to identify microscopic spread of disease. Further evaluation with improved equipment may improve the accuracy of these techniques.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)621-626
Number of pages6
JournalNew England Journal of Medicine
Volume323
Issue number10
StatePublished - Sep 6 1990

Fingerprint

Ultrasonography
Prostatic Neoplasms
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Equipment and Supplies
Neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in staging early prostate cancer : Results of a multi-institutional cooperative trial. / Rifkin, Matthew D.; Zerhouni, Elias A.; Gatsonis, Constantine A.; Quint, Leslie E.; Paushter, David M.; Epstein, Jonathan I.; Hamper, Ulrike; Walsh, Patrick C.; Mcneil, Barbara J.

In: New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 323, No. 10, 06.09.1990, p. 621-626.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{cfb32aed5ef94237bda38694c5540280,
title = "Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in staging early prostate cancer: Results of a multi-institutional cooperative trial",
abstract = "Background. In 1987, a cooperative study group consisting of five institutions was formed to determine the relative benefits of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endorectal (transrectal) ultrasonography in evaluating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer (stage Ta or Tb). Methods. Over a period of 15 months, 230 patients were entered into the study and evaluated with identical imaging techniques. We compared imaging results with information obtained at the time of surgery and on pathological analysis. Results. MRI correctly staged 77 percent of cases of advanced disease and 57 percent of cases of localized disease; the corresponding figures for ultrasonography were 66 and 46 percent (P not significant). These figures did not vary significantly between readers; moreover, simultaneous interpretation of MRI and ultrasound scans did not improve accuracy. In terms of detecting and localizing lesions, MRI identified only 60 percent of all malignant tumors measuring more than 5 mm on pathological analysis and ultrasonography identified only 59 percent. Conclusions. The MRI and ultrasonography equipment that is currently available is not highly accurate in staging early prostate cancer, mainly because neither technique has the ability to identify microscopic spread of disease. Further evaluation with improved equipment may improve the accuracy of these techniques.",
author = "Rifkin, {Matthew D.} and Zerhouni, {Elias A.} and Gatsonis, {Constantine A.} and Quint, {Leslie E.} and Paushter, {David M.} and Epstein, {Jonathan I.} and Ulrike Hamper and Walsh, {Patrick C.} and Mcneil, {Barbara J.}",
year = "1990",
month = "9",
day = "6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "323",
pages = "621--626",
journal = "New England Journal of Medicine",
issn = "0028-4793",
publisher = "Massachussetts Medical Society",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in staging early prostate cancer

T2 - Results of a multi-institutional cooperative trial

AU - Rifkin, Matthew D.

AU - Zerhouni, Elias A.

AU - Gatsonis, Constantine A.

AU - Quint, Leslie E.

AU - Paushter, David M.

AU - Epstein, Jonathan I.

AU - Hamper, Ulrike

AU - Walsh, Patrick C.

AU - Mcneil, Barbara J.

PY - 1990/9/6

Y1 - 1990/9/6

N2 - Background. In 1987, a cooperative study group consisting of five institutions was formed to determine the relative benefits of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endorectal (transrectal) ultrasonography in evaluating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer (stage Ta or Tb). Methods. Over a period of 15 months, 230 patients were entered into the study and evaluated with identical imaging techniques. We compared imaging results with information obtained at the time of surgery and on pathological analysis. Results. MRI correctly staged 77 percent of cases of advanced disease and 57 percent of cases of localized disease; the corresponding figures for ultrasonography were 66 and 46 percent (P not significant). These figures did not vary significantly between readers; moreover, simultaneous interpretation of MRI and ultrasound scans did not improve accuracy. In terms of detecting and localizing lesions, MRI identified only 60 percent of all malignant tumors measuring more than 5 mm on pathological analysis and ultrasonography identified only 59 percent. Conclusions. The MRI and ultrasonography equipment that is currently available is not highly accurate in staging early prostate cancer, mainly because neither technique has the ability to identify microscopic spread of disease. Further evaluation with improved equipment may improve the accuracy of these techniques.

AB - Background. In 1987, a cooperative study group consisting of five institutions was formed to determine the relative benefits of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endorectal (transrectal) ultrasonography in evaluating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer (stage Ta or Tb). Methods. Over a period of 15 months, 230 patients were entered into the study and evaluated with identical imaging techniques. We compared imaging results with information obtained at the time of surgery and on pathological analysis. Results. MRI correctly staged 77 percent of cases of advanced disease and 57 percent of cases of localized disease; the corresponding figures for ultrasonography were 66 and 46 percent (P not significant). These figures did not vary significantly between readers; moreover, simultaneous interpretation of MRI and ultrasound scans did not improve accuracy. In terms of detecting and localizing lesions, MRI identified only 60 percent of all malignant tumors measuring more than 5 mm on pathological analysis and ultrasonography identified only 59 percent. Conclusions. The MRI and ultrasonography equipment that is currently available is not highly accurate in staging early prostate cancer, mainly because neither technique has the ability to identify microscopic spread of disease. Further evaluation with improved equipment may improve the accuracy of these techniques.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0025108376&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0025108376&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 2200965

AN - SCOPUS:0025108376

VL - 323

SP - 621

EP - 626

JO - New England Journal of Medicine

JF - New England Journal of Medicine

SN - 0028-4793

IS - 10

ER -