Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

The Value of Computerized Tomography Scan and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Staging Prostatic Carcinoma: Comparison with the Clinical and Histological Staging

1986; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 136; Issue: 6 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/s0022-5347(17)45294-3

1527-3792

Eliahu Mukamel, James Hannah, Zoran L. Barbaric, Jean B. deKernion,

Prostate Cancer Treatment and Research

No AccessJournal of Urology1 Dec 1986The Value of Computerized Tomography Scan and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Staging Prostatic Carcinoma: Comparison with the Clinical and Histological Staging Eliahu Mukamel, James Hannah, Zoran Barbaric, and Jean B. Dekernion Eliahu MukamelEliahu Mukamel More articles by this author , James HannahJames Hannah More articles by this author , Zoran BarbaricZoran Barbaric More articles by this author , and Jean B. DekernionJean B. Dekernion More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)45294-3AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail In 21 patients adenocarcinoma of the prostate was staged preoperatively by digital rectal examination, computerized tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Clinical staging was compared to the postoperative pathological staging. In 11 patients computerized tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and digital rectal examination findings were concordant with the histological examination showing tumors confined to the prostate. In 10 patients no correlation between preoperative staging and histology was noted. Of these cases 8 were understaged by computerized tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and digital rectal examination. In 1 patient magnetic resonance imaging showed false positive findings and in another staging with computerized tomography and magnetic resonance imaging was more accurate than digital rectal examination. Our experience indicates that computerized tomography and magnetic resonance imaging have limited value in the preoperative staging of prostatic carcinoma. Moreover, staging with computerized tomography and magnetic resonance imaging does not significantly improve the information gained by digital rectal examination. © 1986 by The American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByABUZALLOUF S, DAYES I and LUKKA H (2018) BASELINE STAGING OF NEWLY DIAGNOSED PROSTATE CANCER: A SUMMARY OF THE LITERATUREJournal of Urology, VOL. 171, NO. 6 Part 1, (2122-2127), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2004.CONRAD S, GRAEFEN M, PICHLMEIER U, HENKE R, HAMMERER P and HULAND H (2018) SYSTEMATIC SEXTANT BIOPSIES IMPROVE PREOPERATIVE PREDICTION OF PELVIC LYMPH NODE METASTASES IN PATIENTS WITH CLINICALLY LOCALIZED PROSTATIC CARCINOMAJournal of Urology, VOL. 159, NO. 6, (2023-2029), Online publication date: 1-Jun-1998.Weingartner K, Ramaswamy A, Bittinger A, Gerharz E, Voge D and Riedmiller H (2018) Anatomical Basis for Pelvic Lymphadenectomy in Prostate Cancer: Results of an Autopsy Study and Implications for the ClinicJournal of Urology, VOL. 156, NO. 6, (1969-1971), Online publication date: 1-Dec-1996.Parra R, Isorna S, Garcia Perez M, Cummings J and Boullier J (2018) Radical Perineal Prostatectomy without Pelvic Lymphadenectomy: Selection Criteria and Early ResultsJournal of Urology, VOL. 155, NO. 2, (612-615), Online publication date: 1-Feb-1996.Wolf J, Cher M, Dall'Era M, Presti J, Hricak H and Carroll P (2018) Original Articles: Prostate Cancer: The Use and Accuracy of Cross-Sectional Imaging and Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology for Detection of Pelvic Lymph Node Metastases Before Radical ProstatectomyJournal of Urology, VOL. 153, NO. 3S, (993-999), Online publication date: 1-Mar-1995.Babaian R, Sayer J, Podoloff D, Steelhammer L, Bhadkamkar V and Gulfo J (2018) Radioimmunoscintigraphy of Pelvic Lymph Nodes with 111Indium-Labeled Monoclonal Antibody CYT-356Journal of Urology, VOL. 152, NO. 6 Part 1, (1952-1955), Online publication date: 1-Dec-1994.Rukstalis D, Gerber G, Vogelzang N, Haraf D, Straus F and Chodak G (2018) Laparoscopic Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection: A Review of 103 Consecutive CasesJournal of Urology, VOL. 151, NO. 3, (670-674), Online publication date: 1-Mar-1994.Bluestein D, Bostwick D, Bergstralh E and Oesterling J (2018) Eliminating the Need for Bilateral Pelvic Lymphadenectomy in Select Patients with Prostate CancerJournal of Urology, VOL. 151, NO. 5, (1315-1320), Online publication date: 1-May-1994.Schuessler W, Pharand D and Vancaillie T (2018) Laparoscopic Standard Pelvic node Dissection for Carcinoma of the Prostate: Is it Accurate?Journal of Urology, VOL. 150, NO. 3, (898-901), Online publication date: 1-Sep-1993.Stein A, deKernion J, Smith R, Dorey F and Patel H (2018) Prostate Specific Antigen Levels After Radical Prostatectomy in Patients with Organ Confined and Locally Extensive Prostate CancerJournal of Urology, VOL. 147, NO. 3 Part 2, (942-946), Online publication date: 1-Mar-1992.McSherry S, Levy F, Schiebler M, Keefe B, Dent G and Mohler J (2018) Preoperative Prediction of Pathological Tumor Volume and Stage in Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: Comparison of Digital Rectal Examination, Transrectal Ultrasonography and Magnetic Resonance ImagingJournal of Urology, VOL. 146, NO. 1, (85-89), Online publication date: 1-Jul-1991.Carter G, Lieskovsky G, Skinner D and Petrovich Z (2018) Results of Local and/or Systemic Adjuvant Therapy in the Management of Pathological Stage C or D1 Prostate Cancer Following Radical ProstatectomyJournal of Urology, VOL. 142, NO. 5, (1266-1270), Online publication date: 1-Nov-1989. Volume 136Issue 6December 1986Page: 1231-1233 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 1986 by The American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Eliahu Mukamel More articles by this author James Hannah More articles by this author Zoran Barbaric More articles by this author Jean B. Dekernion More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...