Use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and comparison with other modern imaging methods in the preoperative diagnosis of prostate cancer
Authors:
Olga Dolejšová 1; Viktor Eret 1; Alžběta Šobrová 1; Jiří Ferda 2; Ondřej Hes 3; Milan Hora 1; Jiří Baxa 2
Authors‘ workplace:
Urologická klinika LF UK a FN, Plzeň
1; Klinika zobrazovacích metod FN, Plzeň
2; Šiklův patologicko-anatomický ústav LF UK a FN, Plzeň
3
Published in:
Ces Urol 2014; 18(4): 300-309
Category:
Review article
Overview
Magnetic resonance (MR) has long been considered a promising imaging method to assess the localization and local staging of prostate cancer (CP). The aim of this study is to present modern multiparametic MR and other imaging modalities that could lead to improvement in detection and localization of CP. MR of the prostate was introduced into clinical practice in the mid- 1980s. Since then, there have been significant developments to the present multiparametric MR, which includes a combination of anatomical and functional displays as well as metabolic information. MR is helpful in the diagnosis of prostate cancer, particularly in the cases of suspected clinical or laboratory finding which have not been confirmed by prostate biopsies. The other modern imaging methods include prostate transrectal power Doppler sonography with 3D reconstruction (3D-PDS ), transrectal sonography with echocontrast substances (Contrast – Enhanced Ultrasound, CEUS) HistoScanningTM or elastography. Currently, multiparametric MR is considered to be the optimal preoperative imaging method for evaluating localization and local staging of prostate cancer.
Key words:
prostate cancer, magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography, scintigraphy, ultrasonography.
Sources
1. Bárta J, Ryznarová Z, Klezl P, Záťura F, Adamová M, Kašpar M, Novák J. Postavení magnetické rezonance a magnetické rezonanční spektroskopie při detekci karcinomu prostaty. Čes Urol 2010; 14(3): 186–196.
2. Dvořáček J, Babjuk M, et al. Uroonkologie, 1. vydání. Praha: Galén 2005; 285–294.
3. Hersh MR, Knapp EL, Choi J. Newer Imaging Modalities to Assess Tumor in the Prostate. Cancer Control 2004; 11(6): 353–357.
4. Barentsz JO, Ruchenberg J, Clements R., Choyke P, Verma S, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 746–757.
5. Hoeks CM, Schouten MG, Bomers JG, et al. 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 2012; 62(5): 902–909.
6. Habchi H, Bratan F, Paye A, et al. Value of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for predicting biopsy results in first or repeat biopsy. Clin Radiol 2014; 69(3): 120–128.
7. Portalez D, Rollin G, Leandri P, et al. Prospective comparison of T2w-MRI and dynamic-contrastenhanced MRI, 3D-MR spectroscopic imaging or diffusion-weighted MRI in repeat TRUS-guided biopsies. Eur Radiol 2010; 20(12): 2781–2790.
8. Verma S, Rajesh A. A Clinically Relevant Approach to Imaging Prostate Cancer. AJR 2011; 196(3 Suppl): S1–S10.
9. Hou H, Swanson D, Barqawi AB. Modalities for Imaging of Prostate Cancer. Advances in Urology 2009; 1–12 Article ID 818065.
10. Barentsz JO, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 746–757.
11. Pinto F, Totaro A, Calarco A, Sacco E, et al. Imagining in Prostate cancer Diagnosis: Present Role and Future Perspectives. Urol Int 2011; 86: 373–382.
12. Ferda J, Hora M, Hes O, Kastner J, Ferdova E, Mírka H, Baxa J, Heidenreich F, Fínek J, Kreuzberg B. Zobrazení prostaty na 3T MRI u nemocných se zvýšenou hladinou PSA. Ces Radiol 2012; 66(1): 9–17.
13. Hricak H, Choyke PL, Eberhardt SC, Leibel SA, Scardino PT. Imaging Prostate Cancer: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Radiology 2007; 243(1): 28–53.
14. Ferda J, Kastner J, Ferdová E, Mírka H, Hora M, Hes O, Fínek J, Kreuzberg B. Zobrazení karcinomu prostaty na molekulární úrovni – naše zkušenosti. Ces Radiol 2012; 66(3): 289–295.
15. Záleský M, Urban M, Šmerhovský Z, Zachoval R, Lukeš M, Heráček J. Význam powerdoppler sonografie s 3D rekonstrukcí v předoperační diagnostice extraprostatického rozsahu tumoru u klinicky lokalizovaného karcinomu prostaty. Ces Urol 2006; 10(3): 10–17.
16. Naiki T, Okamura T, Nagata D, Mori Y, Kawai N, Ogawa K, Akita H, Hashimoto Y, Tozawa K, Khori K. Preoparative prediction of neurovacular bundle ivolevement of localized prostate cancer by combined T2 and diffusion – weighted omaginong of magnetic resonance imagining, number of positive bopsy cores, and Gleason score, Asian Pac J Canecr Prev 2011; 12(4): 909–913.
17. Turkbey B, Mani H, Aras O, Rastinehad AR, et al. Correlation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Tumor Volume with Histopathology. J Urol 2012; 188: 1157–1163.
18. Matějková M, Frydrych J, Všetička J. Role magnetické rezonanční spektroskopie v algoritmu vyšetření rebiopsie prostaty. Urol pro praxi 2012; 13(2): 85–87.
19. Moore CM, Robertson NL, Arsanious N, Middleton T, Villers A, Klotz L, Taneja SS, Emberton M. Omage-guided prostate biopsy usong magnetic resonance imagining-derived tergets: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2013; 63(1): 125–140.
20. Ouzzane A, Puech P, Lemaitre L, Leroy X, Nevoux P, Betrouni N, Haber GP, Villers A. Combined multiparametric MRI and targeted biopsies improve anterior prostate cancer detection, staging, and grading. Urology 2011; 78(6): 1356–1362.
21. Hara N, Okuizumi M, Koike H, Kawaguchi M, Bilim V. Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Rseonance Imagining (DCE-MRI) is a useful modality for the precise detection and staging of early prostate cancer. The Prostate 2005; 62: 140–147.
22. Ryznarová Z, Horák M, Dvořák J, Mašek M, Adamová M, Kašpar M. Význam magnetické rezonance v diagnostice karcinomu prostaty a první zkušenosti s využitím MR spektroskopie. Ces Radiol 2009; 63(1): 80–88.
23. Kotulánová E. Ultrasonografie prostaty, semenných váčků a močového měchýře. Urol List 2006; 4(2): 18–21.
24. Čermák A, Pacík D. Diagnostika karcinomu prostaty – současné možnosti a limitace transrektální ultrazvukem vedené biopsie prostaty. Urol pro praxi 2002; 4: 142–149.
25. Kaplan O, Belej K, Kőhler O. Současné trendy diagnostiky karcinomu prostaty. Onkologie 2010; 4(2): 68–71.
26. Braeckman J, Autier P, Garbar Ch, Pipeleers M, et al. Computer-aided ultrasonography (HistoScanning): a novel technology for locating and characterizing prostate cancer. BJU International 2007; 101: 293–298.
27. Simmons LAM, Autier, P, Záťura, Braeckman J, Peltier A, Romic I, Stenzl A, Treurnicht K, Walker T, Nir, D, Moore CM, Emberton M. Detection, localisation and characterisation of prostate cancer by Prostate HistoScanning™. BJU International 2012; 110: 28–35.
28. Ferrari FS, Scorzelli A, Megliola A, Drudi FM, Trovarelli S, Ponchietti R. Real time elastography in the diagnosis of prostate tumor. Journal of Ultrasound 2009; 12: 22–31.
29. Jadvar H. Prostate cancer: PET with 18F-FDG, 18F- or 11C-acetate, and 18F- or 11C-choline. J Nucl Med 2011; 52(1): 81–89.
30. Schöder H, Larson SM. Positron emission tomography for prostate, bladder, and renal cancer. Semin Nucl Med 2004; 34(4): 274–292.
31. Umbehr MH, Muntener M, Hany T, Sulser T, Bachmann LM. The role of 11C-choline and 18F-fluorocholine positron emission tomography (pet) and pet/ct in prostate cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2013; 64: 106–117.
32. Gutman F, Aflalo-Hazan V, Kerrou K, Montravers F, Grahek D, Talbot JN. 18F-choline PET/CT for initial staging of advanced prostate cancer. AJR 2006; 187(6): 618–621.
33. Schwarzenböck S, Souvatzoglou M, Krause BJ. Choline PET and PET/CT in primary diagnosisi and staging of prostate cancer. Theranostics 2012; 2(3): 318–330.
34. Ferdová E, Ferda J, Matějka MV, Fínek J. Zobrazení kostních metastáz pomocí 18F-NaF-PET/CT. Ces Radiol 2011; 65(1): 51–60.
35. Bratan F, et al. Influence of imaging and histological factors on prostate cancer detection and localisation on multiparametric MRI: a prospective study. Eur Radiol 2013; 23(7): 2019–2029.
Labels
Paediatric urologist Nephrology UrologyArticle was published in
Czech Urology
2014 Issue 4
Most read in this issue
- Extracoporeal shock wave lithotripsy in current urological practice
- Use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and comparison with other modern imaging methods in the preoperative diagnosis of prostate cancer
- Autonomic dysreflexia in patient after spinal cord injury
- Evaluation of erectile dysfunction after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy