Value of preoperative MRI for prostate cancer staging and continence outcomes prior to prostatectomy: A review of the literature

Table 3 Studies assessing magnetic resonance imaging accuracy in predicting seminal vesicle involvement

	Imaging technology	Tesla	n	Accuracy	Sensitivity	Specificity	Comment
Chandra et al[30]	T2w imaging with ER-MRI	1.5	38	76	69	82
Fütterer et al[18]	T2w imaging with pelvic phased array and T2w imaging with endorectal coil	1.5	81	90-98 ER-PPA 76-86 PPA	40-90 ER-PPA 30-50 PPA	92-99 ER-PPA 80-94 PPA
Latchamsetty et al[16]	ER-MRI		80	80-85	20-22	94-100	First 40 and second 40. Concluded that experience increases accuracy
Park et al[31]	PPA vs er MRI	3.0	108 (54 in each group)	3-T 98 vs 1.5-T 91%	1.5-T 75% 3.0-T 50%	1.5-T 92% 3.0-T 100%	The 3.0-T MRI had a lower incidence of MR artifacts than the 1.5-T MRI (P < 0.05). However, overall imaging quality at both 3.0 and 1.5 T had no significant difference
Zhang et al[32]	MRI with endorectal and pelvic multi-coil array	1.5	110	99	80	99
Lee et al[36]	1.5 T ERC vs pelvic phased array	1.5	47 ERC vs 44 PPA	89	50 ERC vs 50 PPA	93 ERC vs 98 PPA
Nepple et al[20]	T2w ER-MRI	1.5	94	93	38	99
Hegde et al[19]	T2w multiparamentric ER-MRI-T2w, T1w, DCE and DW	3.0	118	95	50	99	Presence of a T3 lesion on final pathology was associated with T3 on MRI or higher gleason score (8-10)
Kim et al[24]	T2w pelvic array MRI vs T2w imaging ER-MRI	1.5 vs 3.0	151 63 ER-MRI vs 88 pelvic phase array	81 PPA 83 ERC	43 PPA 46 ERC	92 PPA 93 ERC

MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging; ER-MRI: Endorectal MRI; DCE: Dynamic contrast enhanced; DW: Diffusion weighted; PPA: Pelvic phase array; ER-PPA: Endorectal pelvic phase array.