Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: Recommendations from a European consensus meeting

European Urology

Volumn 59, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 477-494

  Dickinson, Louise ^a,b,c   Ahmed, Hashim U ^a,b   Allen, Clare ^b   Barentsz, Jelle O ^d   Carey, Brendan ^e   Futterer, Jurgen J ^d   Heijmink, Stijn W ^d   Hoskin, Peter J ^f   Kirkham, Alex ^b   Padhani, Anwar R ^f   Persad, Raj ^g   Puech, Philippe ^h   Punwani, Shonit ^b   Sohaib, Aslam S ⁱ   Tombal, Bertrand ^j   Villers, Arnauld ^h   Van Der Meulen, Jan ^c,k   Emberton, Mark ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON HOSPITALS   (United Kingdom)

^c ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS OF ENGLAND   (United Kingdom)

^d RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^e LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^f MOUNT VERNON CANCER CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

^g UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS BRISTOL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^h UNIV LILLE   (France)

ⁱ INSTITUTE OF CANCER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^j CLINIQUES UNIVERSITAIRES SAINT LUC   (Belgium)

^k LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

more..

Author keywords

Consensus methods; Multiparametric MRI; Prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER LOCALIZATION; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; EUROPE; HUMAN; MEDICAL EXPERT; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; PROSTATE CANCER; QUESTIONNAIRE; SYMPOSIUM;

EUROPE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; NEOPLASM STAGING; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; UROLOGY;

EID: 79952282240     PISSN: 03022838     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.12.009     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. A.P.S. Kirkham, M. Emberton, and C. Allen How good is MRI at detecting and characterising cancer within the prostate? Eur Urol 50 2006 1163 1175 (Pubitemid 44692933)
2. A. Villers, L. Lemaitre, J. Haffner, and P. Puech Current status of MRI for the diagnosis, staging and prognosis of prostate cancer: implications for focal therapy and active surveillance Curr Opin Urol 19 2009 274 282
3. P. Puech, D. Huglo, G. Petyt, L. Lemaitre, and A. Villers Imaging of organ-confined prostate cancer: functional ultrasound, MRI and PET/computed tomography Curr Opin Urol 19 2009 168 176
4. G.J. Kelloff, P. Choyke, D.S. Coffey Prostate Cancer Imaging Working Group Challenges in clinical prostate cancer: role of imaging AJR Am J Roentgenol 192 2009 1455 1470
5. A. Tanimoto, J. Nakashima, H. Kohno, H. Shinmoto, and S. Kuribayashi Prostate cancer screening: the clinical value of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic MR imaging in combination with T2-weighted imaging J Magn Reson Imaging 25 2007 146 152 (Pubitemid 46095209)
6. M. Chen, H.D. Dang, and J.Y. Wang Prostate cancer detection: comparison of T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging, proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging, and the three techniques combined Acta Radiol 49 2008 602 610
7. A. Villers, P. Puech, D. Mouton, X. Leroy, C. Ballereau, and L. Lemaitre Dynamic contrast enhanced, pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging of localized prostate cancer for predicting tumour volume: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings J Urol 176 2006 2432 2437 (Pubitemid 44665992)
8. P. Puech, E. Potiron, L. Lemaitre, X. Leroy, G.P. Haber, and S. Crouzet Dynamic contrast-enhanced-magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of intraprostatic prostate cancer: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens Urology 74 2009 1094 1099
9. L. Lemaitre, P. Puech, and E. Poncelet Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of anterior prostate cancer: morphometric assessment and correlation with radical prostatectomy findings Eur Radiol 19 2009 470 480
10. Y. Mazaheri, H. Hricak, and S.W. Fine Prostate tumor volume measurement with combined T2-weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted MR: correlation with pathologic tumor volume Radiology 252 2009 449 457
11. S.W. Heijmink, J.J. Futterer, and T. Hambrock Prostate cancer: body-array versus endorectal coil MR imaging at 3 T-comparison of image quality, localization, and staging performance Radiology 244 2007 184 195 (Pubitemid 46981973)
12. J.G. Elmore, C.K. Wells, C.H. Lee, D.H. Howard, and A.R. Feinstein Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms N Engl J Med 331 1994 1493 1499 (Pubitemid 24356309)
13. S. Obenauer, K.P. Hermann, and E. Grabbe Applications and literature review of the BI-RADS classification Eur Radiol 15 2005 1027 1036 (Pubitemid 41166736)
14. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 1993.
15. J. Smallwood, Y. Khong, and A. Boyd Assessment of a scoring system for the preoperative diagnosis of breast lumps Ann R Coll Surg Engl 66 1984 267 269 (Pubitemid 14121041)
16. N.A. Roche, R.M. Given-Wislon, V.A. Thomas, and N.P. Sacks Assessment of a scoring system for breast imaging Br J Surg 85 1998 669 672 (Pubitemid 28247545)
17. A.J. Maxwell, N.T. Ridley, G. Rubin, M.G. Wallis, F.J. Gilbert, M.J. Michell Royal College of Radiologists Breast Group The Royal College of Radiologists Breast Group imaging classification Clin Radiol 64 2009 624 627
18. Lesion Diagnosis Working Group. Lesion Diagnosis Working Group Report. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999; 10:982-90.
19. MARIBS Study Group. A prospective multi-centre cohort study to evaluate the performance of screening with breast MRI and mammography in a population at high familial risk of breast cancer: the UK study of MRI screening for breast cancer at high risk (MARIBS). Lancet 2005; 365:1769-78.
20. J.A. Baker, P.J. Kornguth, and C.E. Floyd Jr. Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description AJR Am J Roentgenol 166 1996 773 778 (Pubitemid 126532715)
21. J.A. Baker, P.J. Kornguth, J.Y. Lo, and C.E. Floyd Jr. Artificial neural network: improving the quality of breast biopsy recommendations Radiology 198 1996 131 135 (Pubitemid 26008254)
22. A. Fink, J. Kosecoff, M. Chassin, and R.H. Brook Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use Am J Public Health 74 1984 979 983 (Pubitemid 14059576)
23. A. Hutchings, R. Raine, C. Sanderson, and N. Black A comparison of formal consensus methods used for developing clinical guidelines J Health Serv Res Policy 11 2006 218 224 (Pubitemid 44622314)
24. K. Fitch, S.J. Bernstein, and M.D. Aguilar The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User's Manual. AHCPR Pub. No. 95-0009 2001 Public Health Service, US Department of Health and Human Services Rockville, MD
25. J.C. Weinreb, J.D. Blume, and F.V. Coakley Prostate cancer: sextant localization at MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging before prostatectomy - results of ACRIN prospective multi-institutional clinicopathologic study Radiology 251 2009 122 133
26. A. Hutchings, and R. Raine A systematic review of factors affecting the judgments produced by formal consensus development methods in health care J Health Serv Res Policy 11 2006 172 179 (Pubitemid 44125189)
27. H.U. Ahmed, A. Kirkham, and M. Arya Is it time to consider a role for MRI before prostate biopsy? Nat Rev Clin Oncol 6 2009 197 206
28. V. Fradet, J. Kurhanewicz, and J.E. Cowan Prostate cancer managed with active surveillance: role of anatomic MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging Radiology 256 2010 176 183
29. H.U. Ahmed, C. Moore, and M. Emberton Minimally invasive technologies in uro-oncology: the role of cryotherapy, HIFU and photodynamic therapy in whole gland and focal therapy of localised prostate cancer Surg Oncol 18 2009 219 232