3-T in-bore MR-guided prostate biopsy based on a scoring system for target lesions characterization

Acta Radiologica

Volumn 54, Issue 10, 2013, Pages 1224-1229

  Quentin, Michael ^a   Schimmöller, Lars ^a   Arsov, Christian ^a   Rabenalt, Robert ^a   Antoch, Gerald ^a   Albers, Peter ^a   Blondin, Dirk ^a  

^a HEINRICH HEINE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

3 T MRI; In bore MR guided biopsy at 3 T; Prostate cancer; Scoring

Indexed keywords

BIOPSY; DISEASES; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING;

DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATIONS; DYNAMIC CONTRAST-ENHANCED IMAGING; IN-BORE MR-GUIDED BIOPSY AT 3-T; NEGATIVE PREDICTIVE VALUE; POSITIVE PREDICTIVE VALUES; PROSTATE CANCERS; SCORING;

UROLOGY;

GADOTERATE MEGLUMINE; GADOTERIC ACID; PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOPSY GUN; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION; DYNAMIC CONTRAST ENHANCED IMAGING; FIVE POINT SCORING SYSTEM; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; GLEASON SCORE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEEDLE BIOPSY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING GUIDED IN BORE PROSTATE BIOPSY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE DISEASE; PROSTATE LESION; PROSTATE TUMOR; RADIODIAGNOSIS; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TISSUE CHARACTERIZATION; VERY ELDERLY; 3-T MRI; IMAGE GUIDED BIOPSY; IN-BORE MR-GUIDED BIOPSY AT 3-T; METHODOLOGY; PATHOLOGY; PROSTATE; PROSTATE CANCER; SCORING;

3-T MRI; IN-BORE MR-GUIDED BIOPSY AT 3-T; PROSTATE CANCER; SCORING;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; DIFFUSION MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; HUMANS; IMAGE-GUIDED BIOPSY; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTATE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84893151825     PISSN: 02841851     EISSN: 16000455     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0284185113492972     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. 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.
2. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22: 746-757.
3. Quentin M, Arsov C, Röhlen S, et al. Inter-Reader Agreement of Multi-Parametric MR Imaging for the Detection of Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of a Scoring System. Rofo 2012;184: 925-929.
4. Arsov C, Blondin D, Rabenalt R, et al. [Standardised scoring of a multi-parametric 3-T MRI for a targeted MRI-guided prostate biopsy.]. Urologe A 2012;51: 848-856.
5. Stewart CS, Leibovich BC, Weaver AL, et al. Prostate cancer diagnosis using a saturation needle biopsy technique after previous negative sextant biopsies. J Urol 2001;166: 86-91.
6. Roethke M, Anastasiadis AG, Lichy M, et al. MRIguided prostate biopsy detects clinically significant cancer: analysis of a cohort of 100 patients after previous negative TRUS biopsy. World J Urol 2012;30: 213-218.
7. 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.
8. 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: 902-909.
9. Hambrock T, Fütterer JJ, Huisman HJ, et al. Thirtytwo- channel coil 3T magnetic resonance-guided biopsies of prostate tumor suspicious regions identified on multimodality 3T magnetic resonance imaging: technique and feasibility. Invest Radiol 2008;43: 686-694.
10. Anastasiadis AG, Lichy MP, Nagele U, et al. MRIguided biopsy of the prostate increases diagnostic performance in men with elevated or increasing PSA levels after previous negative TRUS biopsies. Eur Urol 2006;50: 738-748.
11. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Hoeks C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. J Urol 2010;183: 520-527.
12. Kim BS, Kim TH, Kwon TG, et al. Comparison of pelvic phased-array versus endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging at 3 Tesla for local staging of prostate cancer. Yonsei Med J 2012;53: 550-556.
13. Heijmink SW, van Moerkerk H, Kiemeney LA, et al. A comparison of the diagnostic performance of systematic versus ultrasound-guided biopsies of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 2006;16: 927-938.
14. Tanimoto A, Nakashima J, Kohno H, et al. Prostate cancer screening: the clinical value of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic MR imaging in combination with T2-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;25: 146-152.
15. Kitajima K, Kaji Y, Fukabori Y, et al. Prostate cancer detection with 3 T MRI: comparison of diffusionweighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in combination with T2-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010;31: 625-631.
16. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, et al. Scoring systems used for the interpretation and reporting of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection, localization, and characterization: Could standardization lead to improved utilization of imaging within the diagnostic pathway? J Magn Reson Imaging 2013;37: 48-58.
17. Sakai I, Harada K, Hara I, et al. A comparison of the biological features between prostate cancers arising in the transition and peripheral zones. BJU Int 2005;96: 528-532.
18. Jung JA, Coakley FV, Vigneron DB, et al. Prostate depiction at endorectal MR spectroscopic imaging: investigation of a standardized evaluation system. Radiology 2004;233: 701-708.
19. Delongchamps NB, Rouanne M, Flam T, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the detection and localization of prostate cancer: combination of T2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted imaging. BJU Int 2011;107: 1411-1418.
20. Kumar V, Jagannathan N, Kumar R, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient of the prostate in men prior to biopsy: determination of a cut-off value to predict malignancy of the peripheral zone. NMR Biomed 2007;20: 505-511.
21. Quentin M, Blondin D, Klasen J, et al. Comparison of different mathematical models of diffusion-weighted prostate MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 2012;30: 1468-1474.
22. Weinreb JC, Blume JD, Coakley FV, et al. Prostate cancer: sextant localization at MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging before prostatectomy-results of ACRIN prospective multi-institutional clinicopathologic study. Radiology 2009;251: 122-133.