CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 307Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentMRI in cancer diagnosisMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

MRI with a lymph-node-specific contrast agent as an alternative to CT scan and lymph-node dissection in patients with prostate cancer: a prospective multicohort study

Heesakkers, Roel AM, Hövels, Anke M, Jager, Gerrit J, van den Bosch, Harrie CM, Witjes, J Alfred, Raat, Hein PJ, Severens, Johan L, Adang, Eddy MM, van der Kaa, Christina Hulsbergen, Fütterer, Jurgen J, Barentsz, Jelle·2008·The Lancet Oncology
DOI 10.1016/s1470-2045(08)70203-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background In patients with prostate cancer who are deemed to be at intermediate or high risk of having nodal metastases, invasive diagnostic pelvic lymph-node dissection (PLND) is the gold standard for the detection of nodal disease. However, a new lymph-node-specific MR-contrast agent ferumoxtran-10 can detect metastases in normal-sized nodes (ie, <8 mm in size) by use of MR lymphoangiography (MRL). In this prospective, multicentre cohort study, we aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of MRL with up-to-date multidetector CT (MDCT), and test the hypothesis that a negative MRL finding obviates the need for a PLND.Methods We included consecutive patients with prostate cancer who had an intermediate or high risk (risk of >5% according to routinely used nomograms) of having lymph-node metastases. All patients were assessed by MDCT and MRL, and underwent PLND or fine-needle aspiration biopsy. Imaging results were correlated with histopathology. The primary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, NPV, and PPV of MRL and MDCT. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00185029.Findings The study was done in 11 hospitals in the Netherlands between April 8, 2003, and April 19, 2005. 375 consecutive patients were included. 61 of 375 (16%) patients had lymph-node metastases. Sensitivity was 34% (21 of 61; 95% CI 23-48) for MDCT and 82% (50 of 61; 70-90) for MRL (McNemar's test p<0.05). Specificity was 97% (303 of 314; 94-98) for MDCT and 93% (291 of 314; 89-95) for MRL. Positive predictive value (PPV) was 66% (21 of 32; 47-81) for MDCT and 69% (50 of 73; 56-79) for MRL. Negative predictive value (NPV) was 88% (303 of 343; 84-91) for MDCT and 96% (291 of 302; 93-98) for MRL (McNemar's test p<0.05). Of the 61 patients with lymph-node metastases, 50 were detected by MRL, of which 40 (80%) had metastases in normal-sized lymph nodes. The high sensitivity and NPV of MRL imply that in patients with a negative MRL, the chance of positive lymph nodes is less than 11/302 (4%).Interpretation MRL had significantly higher sensitivity and NPV than MDCT for patients with prostate cancer who had intermediate or high risk of having lymph-node metastases. In such patients, after a negative MRL, the post-test probability of having lymph-node metastases is low enough to omit a PLND.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1470-2045(08)70203-1

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 40 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. El Galley, 1998, Evaluation of staging lymphadenectomy in prostate cancer, Urology, 52, 663, 10.1016/S0090-4295(98)00222-2 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 305

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Heesakkers, R. A., Hövels, A. M., Jager, G. J., van den Bosch, H. C., Witjes, J. A., Raat, H. P., Severens, J. L., Adang, E. M., van der Kaa, C. H., Fütterer, J. J., & Barentsz, J.
Affiliations
  • Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
  • Jeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis (NL)
  • ZorgSaam (NL)
  • Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL)
Corresponding author
Barentsz, Jelle
ORCID
Venue
The Lancet Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-09
Volume
9
Issue
9
Pages
850-856
ISSN
1470-2045 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s1470-2045(08)70203-1
OpenAlex
W2124586180
Cited by
307
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 26
FWCI
19.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • The Lancet Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Radboud Universiteit
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › MRI in cancer diagnosis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
prostate cancer, pelvic lymph node metastasis, MR lymphography, ferumoxtran-10, pelvic lymphadenectomy, multidetector computed tomography, diagnostic accuracy, intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer, fine-needle aspiration, lymph node staging, negative predictive value, sensitivity and specificity, cost-effectiveness, quality of life
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Contrast Media, Dextrans, Humans, Iron, Lymph Node Excision, Lymphatic Metastasis, Male, Middle Aged, Oxides, Predictive Value of Tests, Prostatic Neoplasms, Sensitivity and Specificity, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Echo-Planar Imaging, Ferrosoferric Oxide, Magnetite Nanoparticles

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review