Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: Urology. 2014 Feb;83(2):369–375. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.09.045

Table 4.

Logistic regression analysis comparing model fit for Epstein’s criteria with and without magnetic resonance imaging

Pathologic Findings Epstein’s Criteria r2 Epstein’s Criteria ADC <850 µm2/s r2 P Value
Gleason ≥6 and Tumor Volume ≥0.2 mL 5.83 (1.68–20.24) 0.11 5.58 (1.58–19.66) 3.53 (0.71–17.43) 0.14 .09
Gleason ≥6 and Tumor Volume ≥0.5 mL 4.30 (1.44–12.86) 0.10 4.11 (1.36–12.46) 2.77 (0.72–10.72) 0.08 .11
Gleason ≥6 and Tumor Volume ≥1.3 mL 6.80 (2.62–17.65) 0.14 7.04 (2.59–19.13) 4.85 (1.41–16.64) 0.20 .006
Gleason ≥7 and Any Size 4.56 (1.93–10.79) 0.09 5.35 (1.99–14.39) 8.78 (2.95–26.13) 0.22 <.001
Gleason ≥7 and Tumor Volume ≥0.2 mL 4.56 (1.93–10.79) 0.09 5.35 (1.99–14.39) 8.78 (2.95–26.13) 0.22 <.001
Gleason ≥7 and Tumor Volume ≥0.5 mL 4.56 (1.93–10.79) 0.09 5.35 (1.99–14.39) 8.78 (2.95–26.13) 0.22 <.001
Gleason ≥7 and Tumor Volume ≥1.3 mL 5.16 (2.13–12.50) 0.10 6.46 (2.28–18.25) 9.35 (3.16–27.64) 0.24 <.001

Abbreviation as in Table 1.