Prostate cancer: Comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI techniques for localization of peripheral zone tumor

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 201, Issue 3, 2013, Pages

  Rosenkrantz, Andrew B ^a   Sabach, Amy ^a   Babb, James S ^a   Matza, Brent W ^a   Taneja, Samir S ^a   Deng, Fang Ming ^b  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b NY School of Medicine   (United States)

Author keywords

Dynamic contrast enhanced imaging; MRI; Peripheral zone; Prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

GADOLINIUM PENTETATE MEGLUMINE;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER GRADING; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DYNAMIC CONTRAST ENHANCED MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; GLEASON SCORE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PERIPHERAL ZONE TUMOR; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TUMOR LOCALIZATION; TUMOR VOLUME;

BIOPSY; COLOR; CONTRAST MEDIA; GADOLINIUM DTPA; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84884640547     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.12.9737     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, et al. Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 2011; 261:46-66
2. Bonekamp D, Jacobs MA, El-Khouli R, Stoianovici D, Macura KJ. Advancements in MR imaging of the prostate: from diagnosis to interventions. RadioGraphics 2011; 31:677-703
3. Franiel T, Hamm B, Hricak H. Dynamic contrastenhanced magnetic resonance imaging and pharmacokinetic models in prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 2011; 21:616-626
4. Fütterer JJ, Heijmink SW, Scheenen TW, et al. Prostate cancer localization with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 2006; 241:449-458
5. Riches SF, Payne GS, Morgan VA, et al. MRI in the detection of prostate cancer: combined apparent diffusion coefficient, metabolite ratio, and vascular parameters. AJR 2009; 193:1583-1591
6. Franiel T, Stephan C, Erbersdobler A, et al. 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 2011; 259:162-172
7. Fütterer JJ, Engelbrecht MR, Huisman HJ, et al. Staging prostate cancer with dynamic contrastenhanced endorectal MR imaging prior to radical prostatectomy: experienced versus less experienced readers. Radiology 2005; 237:541-549
8. Ogura K, Maekawa S, Okubo K, et al. Dynamic endorectal magnetic resonance imaging for local staging and detection of neurovascular bundle involvement of prostate cancer: correlation with histopathologic results. Urology 2001; 57:721-726
9. Ren J, Huan Y, Wang H, et al. Dynamic contrastenhanced MRI of benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostatic carcinoma: correlation with angiogenesis. Clin Radiol 2008; 63:153-159
10. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22:746-757
11. Noworolski SM, Henry RG, Vigneron DB, Kurhanewicz J. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in normal and abnormal prostate tissues as defined by biopsy, MRI, and 3D MRSI. Magn Reson Med 2005; 53:249-255
12. Oto A, Yang C, Kayhan A, et al. Diffusionweighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation of quantitative MR parameters with Gleason score and tumor angiogenesis. AJR 2011; 197:1382-1390
13. Ocak I, Bernardo M, Metzger G, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer at 3 T: a study of pharmacokinetic parameters. AJR 2007; 189:[web]W192-W201
14. Greenwood BM, Behluli MR, Feller JF, et al. Trans-rectal interventional MRI: initial prostate biopsy experience. (abstr) Proceedings of the 2010 meeting of the SPIE. San Diego, CA: SPIE, 7625
15. Langer DL, van der Kwast TH, Evans AJ, et al. Prostate tissue composition and MR measurements: investigating the relationships between ADC, T2, K(trans), v(e), and corresponding histologic features. Radiology 2010; 255:485-494
16. Langer DL, van der Kwast TH, Evans AJ, Trachtenberg J, Wilson BC, Haider MA. Prostate cancer detection with multi-parametric MRI: logistic regression analysis of quantitative T2, diffusion-weighted imaging, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009; 30:327-334
17. Haider MA, van der Kwast TH, Tanguay J, et al. Combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI for localization of prostate cancer. AJR 2007; 189:323-328
18. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 2011; 59:477-494
19. Franiel T, Ludemann L, Rudolph B, et al. Evaluation of normal prostate tissue, chronic prostatitis, and prostate cancer by quantitative perfusion analysis using a dynamic contrast-enhanced inversion-prepared dual-contrast gradient echo sequence. Invest Radiol 2008; 43:481-487
20. Padhani AR, Gapinski CJ, Macvicar DA, et al. Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation with morphology and tumour stage, histological grade and PSA. Clin Radiol 2000; 55:99-109
21. Kiessling F, Lichy M, Grobholz R, et al. Simple models improve the discrimination of prostate cancers from the peripheral gland by T1-weighted dynamic MRI. Eur Radiol 2004; 14:1793-1801
22. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr., Amin MB, Egevad LL. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29:1228-1242
23. Rubin MA, Buyyounouski M, Bagiella E, et al. Microvessel density in prostate cancer: lack of correlation with tumor grade, pathologic stage, and clinical outcome. Urology 1999; 53:542-547
24. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, et al. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 2011; 259:453-461
25. Hambrock T, Hoeks C, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, et al. Prospective assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using 3-T diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies versus a systematic 10-core transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy cohort. Eur Urol 2012; 61:177-184
26. van As NJ, de Souza NM, Riches SF, et al. A study of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in men with untreated localised prostate cancer on active surveillance. Eur Urol 2009; 56:981-987
27. Park SY, Kim CK, Park BK, Lee HM, Lee KS. Prediction of biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy in men with prostate cancer by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: initial results. Eur Radiol 2011; 21:1111-1118
28. Deering RE, Bigler SA, Brown M, Brawer MK. Microvascularity in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Prostate 1995; 26:111-115
29. Oto A, Kayhan A, Jiang Y, et al. Prostate cancer: differentiation of central gland cancer from benign prostatic hyperplasia by using diffusionweighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2010; 257:715-723