scholarly journals Malakoplakia of the Prostate as a Mimicker of Prostate Cancer on Prostate Health Index and Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Fusion Prostate Biopsy: A Case Report

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathaniel H. Heah ◽  
Teck Wei Tan ◽  
Yung Khan Tan
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Case Report ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Prostate Biopsy ◽  
Health Index ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Health Index ◽  
Prostate Health

scholarly journals Combining prostate health index and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in estimating the histological diameter of prostate cancer

BMC Urology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Po-Fan Hsieh ◽  
Tzung-Ruei Li ◽  
Wei-Ching Lin ◽  
Han Chang ◽  
Chi-Ping Huang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Safety Margin ◽  
Tumor Diameter ◽  
Health Index ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Health Index ◽  
Prostate Health

Abstract Background Although multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is widely used to assess the volume of prostate cancer, it often underestimates the histological tumor boundary. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of combining prostate health index (PHI) and mpMRI to estimate the histological tumor diameter and determine the safety margin during treatment of prostate cancer. Methods We retrospectively enrolled 72 prostate cancer patients who underwent radical prostatectomy and had received PHI tests and mpMRI before surgery. We compared the discrepancy between histological and radiological tumor diameter stratified by Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score, and then assessed the influence of PHI on the discrepancy between low PI-RADS (2 or 3) and high PI-RADS (4 or 5) groups. Results The mean radiological and histological tumor diameters were 1.60 cm and 2.13 cm, respectively. The median discrepancy between radiological and histological tumor diameter of PI-RADS 4 or 5 lesions was significantly greater than that of PI-RADS 2 or 3 lesions (0.50 cm, IQR (0.00–0.90) vs. 0.00 cm, IQR (−0.10–0.20), p = 0.02). In the low PI-RADS group, the upper limit of the discrepancy was 0.2 cm; so the safety margin could be set at 0.1 cm. In the high PI-RADS group, the upper limits of the discrepancy were 1.2, 1.6, and 2.2 cm in men with PHI < 30, 30–60, and > 60; so the safety margin could be set at 0.6, 0.8, and 1.1 cm, respectively. Conclusions Radiological tumor diameter on mpMRI often underestimated the histological tumor diameter, especially for PI-RADS 4 or 5 lesions. Combining mpMRI and PHI may help to better estimate the histological tumor diameter.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document