Prospective analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of digital rectal examination and magnetic resonance imaging for T staging of prostate cancer.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 ONCOLOGY
Junming Zhu, Xiaohui Wu, Yuting Xue, Xiaodong Li, Qingshui Zheng, Xueyi Xue, Zhiyang Huang, Shaohao Chen
{"title":"Prospective analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of digital rectal examination and magnetic resonance imaging for T staging of prostate cancer.","authors":"Junming Zhu,&nbsp;Xiaohui Wu,&nbsp;Yuting Xue,&nbsp;Xiaodong Li,&nbsp;Qingshui Zheng,&nbsp;Xueyi Xue,&nbsp;Zhiyang Huang,&nbsp;Shaohao Chen","doi":"10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_176_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Accurate staging of prostate cancer (PCa) is the basis for the risk stratification to select targeted treatment. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy rates of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and digital rectal examination (DRE) for preoperative T staging of potentially resectable PCa.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From March 2021 to March 2022, patients with PCa with T staging by prostate biopsy were included. All examinations used postoperative histopathologic T staging as the reference standard. All patients underwent DRE and MRI before the puncture. Two blinded urologists and radiologists independently evaluated DRE and MRI, respectively. Before the examination, patients were then divided into early- (T1, T2) and late-(T3, T4) stage cancer. Analysis of a paired sample sign test was performed to determine differences between DRE and MRI.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 136 study participants with PCa were evaluated histopathologically, of whom 71% (97/136) and 29% (39/136) were at the early- and late-stage cancer, respectively. MRI had a significantly higher accuracy (91.9% vs. 76.5%, P < 0.001) compared with DRE. Further, MRI showed a higher sensitivity than DRE to diagnose early PCa (92.8% vs. 74.2%; P < 0.001). However, the specificity was not significantly different between them (89.7% vs. 82.1%; P = 0.375). Area under the curve (receiver operating curve) values were calculated as 0.78 ± 0.038 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.86), 0.91 ± 0.028 (95% CI, 0.86-0.97), and 0.872 ± 0.028 (95% CI, 0.80-0.92) for DRE-, MRI-, MRI + DRE-based PCa predictions, respectively. The prediction performance of MRI was better than that of DRE (DeLong test, z = 3.632, P = 0.0003) and MRI + DRE (DeLong test, z = 3.715, P = 0.0002).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For resectable PCa, the diagnostic potential of MRI in assessing the T stage was higher than that of DRE. However, DRE is still valuable, especially for patients with locally advanced PCa.</p>","PeriodicalId":15208,"journal":{"name":"Journal of cancer research and therapeutics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of cancer research and therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_176_23","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Accurate staging of prostate cancer (PCa) is the basis for the risk stratification to select targeted treatment. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy rates of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and digital rectal examination (DRE) for preoperative T staging of potentially resectable PCa.

Methods: From March 2021 to March 2022, patients with PCa with T staging by prostate biopsy were included. All examinations used postoperative histopathologic T staging as the reference standard. All patients underwent DRE and MRI before the puncture. Two blinded urologists and radiologists independently evaluated DRE and MRI, respectively. Before the examination, patients were then divided into early- (T1, T2) and late-(T3, T4) stage cancer. Analysis of a paired sample sign test was performed to determine differences between DRE and MRI.

Results: A total of 136 study participants with PCa were evaluated histopathologically, of whom 71% (97/136) and 29% (39/136) were at the early- and late-stage cancer, respectively. MRI had a significantly higher accuracy (91.9% vs. 76.5%, P < 0.001) compared with DRE. Further, MRI showed a higher sensitivity than DRE to diagnose early PCa (92.8% vs. 74.2%; P < 0.001). However, the specificity was not significantly different between them (89.7% vs. 82.1%; P = 0.375). Area under the curve (receiver operating curve) values were calculated as 0.78 ± 0.038 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.86), 0.91 ± 0.028 (95% CI, 0.86-0.97), and 0.872 ± 0.028 (95% CI, 0.80-0.92) for DRE-, MRI-, MRI + DRE-based PCa predictions, respectively. The prediction performance of MRI was better than that of DRE (DeLong test, z = 3.632, P = 0.0003) and MRI + DRE (DeLong test, z = 3.715, P = 0.0002).

Conclusion: For resectable PCa, the diagnostic potential of MRI in assessing the T stage was higher than that of DRE. However, DRE is still valuable, especially for patients with locally advanced PCa.

直肠指检与磁共振成像对前列腺癌T分期诊断准确性的前瞻性分析。
背景:前列腺癌(PCa)的准确分期是风险分层选择靶向治疗的依据。因此,本研究旨在比较磁共振成像(MRI)和直肠指检(DRE)对潜在可切除前列腺癌术前T分期的诊断准确率。方法:纳入2021年3月至2022年3月前列腺活检分期为T型的前列腺癌患者。所有检查均以术后组织病理学T分期为参考标准。所有患者穿刺前均行DRE和MRI检查。两名盲法泌尿科医生和放射科医生分别独立评估DRE和MRI。在检查前,将患者分为早期(T1、T2)和晚期(T3、T4)癌。对配对样本符号检验进行分析,以确定DRE和MRI之间的差异。结果:共有136例PCa研究参与者进行了组织病理学评估,其中71%(97/136)和29%(39/136)分别处于早期和晚期癌症。与DRE相比,MRI的准确率明显更高(91.9% vs. 76.5%, P < 0.001)。此外,MRI诊断早期PCa的敏感性高于DRE (92.8% vs. 74.2%;P < 0.001)。但特异性差异无统计学意义(89.7% vs. 82.1%;P = 0.375)。基于DRE-、MRI-、MRI + re的PCa预测曲线下面积(受试者工作曲线)值分别为0.78±0.038(95%可信区间[CI], 0.71 ~ 0.86)、0.91±0.028 (95% CI, 0.86 ~ 0.97)和0.872±0.028 (95% CI, 0.80 ~ 0.92)。MRI的预测效果优于DRE (DeLong检验,z = 3.632, P = 0.0003)和MRI + DRE (DeLong检验,z = 3.715, P = 0.0002)。结论:对于可切除的前列腺癌,MRI在评估T期的诊断潜力高于DRE。然而,DRE仍然是有价值的,特别是对于局部晚期PCa患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
15.40%
发文量
299
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The journal will cover technical and clinical studies related to health, ethical and social issues in field of Medical oncology, radiation oncology, medical imaging, radiation protection, non-ionising radiation, radiobiology. Articles with clinical interest and implications will be given preference.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信