Temporal changes in MRI appearance of the prostate after focal ablation
The purpose of our study was to retrospectively evaluate and categorize temporal changes in MRI appearances of the prostate in patients who underwent focal therapy with MRI follow-up.
The Institutional Review Board approved this retrospective study and waived the requirement for informed consent. Thirty-seven patients (median age 61; 48–70 years) with low-to-intermediate-risk, clinically organ-confined prostate cancer underwent focal ablation therapy from 2009 to 2014. Two radiologists reviewed post-treatment MRIs (n = 76) and categorized imaging features blinded to the time interval between the focal therapy and the follow-up MRI. Inter-reader agreement was assessed (kappa) and generalized linear regression was used to examine associations between an imaging feature being present/absent and days between ablation and MRI.
Inter-reader agreement on MRI features ranged from fair to substantial. Edema was found present at earlier times after ablation (median 16–25 days compared to MRIs without edema, median 252–514 days), as was rim enhancement of the ablation zone (18–22.5 days vs. 409–593 days), a hypointense rim around the ablation zone on T2-weighted images (53-57.5 days vs. 279–409 days) and the presence of an appreciable ablation cavity (48.5–60 days vs. 613–798 days, all p < 0.05). Enhancement of the ablation zone/scar (553–731 days vs. 61.5–162 days) and the formation of a T2-hypointense scar were found to be present on later MRI scans (514–553 days vs. 29–32 days, one reader).
The MRI appearance of the prostate after focal ablation changes substantially over time. Identification of temporal patterns in the appearance of imaging features should help reduce image interpretation variability and errors when assessing post-therapeutic scans.
KeywordsProstate cancer Magnetic resonance imaging Recurrence Electroporation Cryosurgery
The authors thank Ada Muellner, MS for editing the manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
This research was funded in part through the NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748.
Conflicts of interest
All authors declare no conflict of interest.
Research involving human participants
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
The requirement for informed consent was waived by the local IRB for this retrospective study.
- 2.Somford DM, Hamoen EH, Fütterer JJ, et al. (2013) The predictive value of endorectal 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for extraprostatic extension in patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. J Urol 190(5):1728–1734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Wibmer A, Vargas HA, Donahue TF, et al. (2015) Diagnosis of extracapsular extension of prostate cancer on prostate MRI: impact of second-opinion readings by subspecialized genitourinary oncologic radiologists. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205(1):W73–W78. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.13600 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.van den Bos W, de Bruin DM, van Randen A, et al. (2016) MRI and contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging for evaluation of focal irreversible electroporation treatment: results from a phase I-II study in patients undergoing IRE followed by radical prostatectomy. Eur Radiol 26(7):2252–2260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4042-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar