Advertisement

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Detection

  • Tahir Durmus
  • Alexander Baur
  • Bernd Hamm

Abstract

Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy in men, but only about 10% of patients die from that cancer. While the incidence rate in the last 30 years has increased fourfold the mortality rate has decreased over the last 20 years [1]. This can be primarily attributed to the early detection of prostate cancer as a result of the common practice of testing the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in peripheral blood. Trendsetting studies indicate that the current diagnostic and therapeutic approach must be fundamentally rethought. Wilt et al. could not show a significant reduction in mortality rate for patients with a localized tumor who underwent a radical prostatectomy compared with patients who were simply monitored [2]. In addition to possible postoperative complications, radical prostatectomy was associated with a significantly higher morbidity rate (incontinence, erectile dysfunction) [2]. As with radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy is also associated with significant side effects, such as loss of potency, in up to 50% of patients [3].

Keywords

Prostate Cancer Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Benign Prostate Hyperplasia Radical Prostatectomy Gleason Score 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A (2012) Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 62:10–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM et al (2012) Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 367:203–213.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zelefsky MJ, Chan H, Hunt M et al (2006) Long-term outcome of high dose intensity modulated radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 176:1415–1419.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Padhani AR (2011) Integrating multiparametric prostate MRI into clinical practice. Cancer Imaging 11:S27–S37.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beyersdorff D, Darsow U, Stephan C et al (2003) [MRI of prostate cancer using three different coil systems: image quality, tumor detection, and staging]. Rofo 175:799–805.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nakashima J, Tanimoto A, Imai Y et al (2004) Endorectal MRI for prediction of tumor site, tumor size, and local extension of prostate cancer. Urology 64:101–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beyersdorff D, Taupitz M, Winkelmann B et al (2002) Patients with a history of elevated prostate-specific antigen levels and negative transrectal US-guided quadrant or sextant biopsy results: value of MR imaging. Radiology 224:701–706.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barrett T, Vargas HA, Akin O et al (2012) Value of the hemorrhage exclusion sign on T1-weighted prostate MR images for the detection of prostate cancer. Radiology 263:751–757.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosenkrantz AB, Kopec M, Kong X et al (2010) Prostate cancer vs. post-biopsy hemorrhage: diagnosis with T2-and diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 31:1387–1394.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaji Y, Kurhanewicz J, Hricak H et al (1998) Localizing prostate cancer in the presence of postbiopsy changes on MR images: role of proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 206:785–790.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Franiel T, Stephan C, Erbersdobler A et al (2011) Areas suspicious for prostate cancer: MR-guided biopsy in patients with at least one transrectal US-guided biopsy with a negative finding-multiparametric MR imaging for detection and biopsy planning. Radiology 259:162–172.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Turkbey B, Pinto PA, Mani H et al (2010) Prostate cancer: value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection-histopathologic correlation. Radiology 255:89–99.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22:746–757.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Turkbey B, Aras O, Karabulut N et al (2012) Diffusion-weighted MRI for detecting and monitoring cancer: a review of current applications in body imaging. Diagn Interv Radiol 18: 46–59.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yagci AB, Ozari N, Aybek Z et al (2011) The value of diffusion-weighted MRI for prostate cancer detection and localization. Diagn Interv Radiol 17:130–134.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haider MA, van der Kwast TH, Tanguay J et al (2007) Combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI for localization of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:323–328.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim CK, Park BK, Lee HM et al (2007) Value of diffusion-weighted imaging for the prediction of prostate cancer location at 3T using a phased-array coil: preliminary results. Invest Radiol 42:842–847.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oto A, Yang C, Kayhan A et al (2011) Diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation of quantitative MR parameters with Gleason score and tumor angiogenesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:1382–1390.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Turkbey B, Shah VP, Pang Y et al (2011) Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? Radiology 258:488–495.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ et al (2011) Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 259:453–461.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Turkbey B, Bernardo M, Merino MJ et al (2012) MRI of localized prostate cancer: coming of age in the PSA era. Diagn Interv Radiol 18:34–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Durmus T, Vollnberg B, Schwenke C et al (2013) Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of the prostate: comparison of Gadobutrol and Gd-DTPA. Rofo 185:862–868.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Franiel T, Hamm B, Hricak H (2011) Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and pharmacokinetic models in prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 21:616–626.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ocak I, Bernardo M, Metzger G et al (2007) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer at 3 T: a study of pharma-cokinetic parameters. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:849.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kozlowski P, Chang SD, Jones EC et al (2006) Combined diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis-correlation with biopsy and histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging 24:108–113.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Noworolski SM, Vigneron DB, Chen AP et al (2008) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and MR diffusion imaging to distinguish between glandular and stromal prostatic tissues. Magn Reson Imaging 26:1071–1080.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Delongchamps NB, Rouanne M, Flam T et al (2011) Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging for the detection and localization of prostate cancer: combination of T2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted imaging. BJU Int 107:1411–1418.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bloch BN, Furman-Haran E, Helbich TH et al (2007) Prostate cancer: accurate determination of extracapsular extension with high-spatial-resolution dynamic contrast-enhanced and T2-weighted MR imaging-initial results. Radiology 245:176–185.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cirillo S, Petracchini M, Scotti L et al (2009) Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 Tesla to assess local recurrence following radical prostatectomy using T2-weighted and contrast-enhanced imaging. Eur Radiol 19:761–769.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Scheenen TW, Futterer J, Weiland E et al (2011) Discriminating cancer from noncancer tissue in the prostate by 3-dimensional proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging: a prospective multicenter validation study. Invest Radiol 46:25–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Turkbey B, Mani H, Shah V et al (2011) Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. J Urol 186:1818–1824.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Coakley FV, Kurhanewicz J, Lu Y et al (2002) Prostate cancer tumor volume: measurement with endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 223:91–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rothke M, Blondin D, Schlemmer HP et al (2013) PI-RADS-Klassifikation: Strukturiertes Befundungsschema fur die MRT der Prostata. Fortschr Röntgenstr 185: 253–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Portalez D, Mozer P, Cornud F et al (2012) Validation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in a cohort of repeat biopsy patients. Eur Urol 62:986–996.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schimmoller L, Quentin M, Arsov C et al (2013) Inter-reader agreement of the ESUR score for prostate MRI using in-bore MRI-guided biopsies as the reference standard. Eur Radiol 23:3185–3190.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rosenkrantz AB, Kim S, Lim RP et al (2013) Prostate cancer localization using multiparametric MR Imaging: comparison of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) and Likert scales. Radiology 269:482–492.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Quentin M, Schimmoller L, Arsov C et al (2013) 3-T in-bore MR-guided prostate biopsy based on a scoring system for target lesions characterization. Acta Radiol 54:1224–1229.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    de la Taille A, Antiphon P, Salomon L et al (2003) Prospective evaluation of a 21-sample needle biopsy procedure designed to improve the prostate cancer detection rate. Urology 61:1181–1186.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Eskicorapci SY, Baydar DE, Akbal C et al (2004) An extended 10-core transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsy protocol improves the detection of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 45:444–448.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wefer AE, Hricak H, Vigneron DB et al (2000) Sextant localization of prostate cancer: comparison of sextant biopsy, magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging with step section histology. J Urol 164:400–404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Durmus T, Reichelt U, Huppertz A et al (2013) MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate: correlation between the cancer detection rate and the number of previous negative TRUS biopsies. Diagn Interv Radiol 19:411–417.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bodelle B, Naguib NN, Schulz B et al (2013) 1.5-T magnetic resonance-guided transgluteal biopsies of the prostate in patients with clinically suspected prostate cancer: technique and feasibility. Invest Radiol 48:458–463.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wolter K, Decker G, Willinek WA (2013) Transperineal MR-guided stereotactic prostate biopsy utilizing a commercially available anorectal biopsy device. Rofo 185:116–120.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Beyersdorff D, Winkel A, Hamm B et al (2005) MR imaging-guided prostate biopsy with a closed MR unit at 1.5 T: initial results. Radiology 234:576–581.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hambrock T, Somford DM, Hoeks C et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. J Urol 183:520–527.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hoeks CM, Schouten MG, Bomers JG et al (2012) Three-Tesla magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy in men with increased prostate-specific antigen and repeated, negative, random, systematic, transrectal ultrasound biopsies: detection of clinically significant prostate cancers. Eur Urol 62:902–909.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Roethke M, Anastasiadis AG, Lichy M et al (2012) MRI-guided prostate biopsy detects clinically significant cancer: analysis of a cohort of 100 patients after previous negative TRUS biopsy. World J Urol 30:213–218.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Puech P, Rouviere O, Renard-Penna R et al (2013) Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy-prospective multicenter study. Radiology 268:461–469.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Durmus T, Stephan C, Grigoryev M et al (2013) [Detection of prostate cancer by real-time MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy: 3T MRI and state of the art sonography]. Rofo 185:428–433.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sonn GA, Chang E, Natarajan S et al (2013) Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Eur Urol 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.025 [Epub ahead to print].Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Walton-Diaz A, Hoang AN, Turkbey B et al (2013) Can MR-US fusion biopsy improve cancer detection in enlarged prostates? J Urol 90:2020–2025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lees K, Durve M, Parker C (2012) Active surveillance in prostate cancer. Current Opinion in Urology 22:210–215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wise AM, Stamey TA, McNeal JE et al (2002) Morphologic and clinical significance of multifocal prostate cancers in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 60:264–269.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    de la Rosette J, Ahmed H, Barentsz J et al (2010) Focal therapy in prostate cancer-report from a consensus panel. J Endourol 24:775–780.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bomers JG, Sedelaar JP, Barentsz JO et al (2012) MRI-guided interventions for the treatment of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:714–720.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    van den Bos W, Muller BG, de la Rosette JJ (2013) A randomized controlled trial on focal therapy for localized prostate carcinoma: hemiablation versus complete ablation with irreversible electroporation. J Endourol 27:262–264.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tahir Durmus
    • 1
  • Alexander Baur
    • 1
  • Bernd Hamm
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, CharitéUniversitätsmedizin BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations