Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 19, 2026
MR Molecular Imaging of Prostate Cancer with a Small Molecular CLT1 Peptide Targeted Contrast Agent
Published on: September 3, 2013
Clinical stage T1c prostate cancer: evaluation with endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging
Jingbo Zhang1, Hedvig Hricak, Amita Shukla-Dave
1Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, Room C-278, New York, NY 10065, USA. zhangjlz@mskcc.org
Purpose:
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of endorectal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging for prediction of the pathologic stage of prostate cancer and the presence of clinically nonimportant disease in patients with clinical stage T1c prostate cancer.
Materials And Methods:
The institutional review board approved-and waived the informed patient consent requirement for-this HIPAA-compliant study involving 158 patients (median age, 58 years; age range, 40-76 years) who had clinical stage T1c prostate cancer, had not been treated preoperatively, and underwent combined 1.5-T endorectal MR imaging-MR spectroscopic imaging between January 2003 and March 2004 before undergoing radical prostatectomy. On the MR images and combined endorectal MR-MR spectroscopic images, two radiologists retrospectively and independently rated the likelihood of cancer in 12 prostate regions and the likelihoods of extracapsular extension (ECE), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), and adjacent organ invasion by using a five-point scale, and they determined the probability of clinically nonimportant prostate cancer by using a four-point scale. Whole-mount step-section pathology maps were used for imaging-pathologic analysis correlation. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed and areas under the curves (AUCs) were estimated nonparametrically for assessment of reader accuracy.
Results:
At surgical-pathologic analysis, one (0.6%) patient had no cancer; 124 (78%) patients, organ-confined (stage pT2) disease; 29 (18%) patients, ECE (stage pT3a); two (1%) patients, SVI (stage pT3b); and two (1%) patients, bladder neck invasion (stage pT4). Forty-six (29%) patients had a total tumor volume of less than 0.5 cm(3). With combined MR imaging-MR spectroscopic imaging, the two readers achieved 80% accuracy in disease staging and AUCs of 0.62 and 0.71 for the prediction of clinically nonimportant cancer.
Conclusion:
Clinical stage T1c prostate cancers are heterogeneous in pathologic stage and volume. MR imaging may help to stratify patients with clinical stage T1c disease for appropriate clinical management.
