Assessment of prostate cancer with dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography using an en bloc approach

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 49, Issue 9, 2014, Pages 571-578

  Huellner, Martin W ^a   Pauli, Chantal ^b   Mattei, Agostino ^c   Ross, Steffen ^a   Diebold, Joachim ^b   Vosbeck, Jürg ^b   Allgayer, Bernhard ^a   Strobel, Klaus ^a   Veit Haibach, Patrick ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b Pathology Institute Länggasse   (Switzerland)

^c LUZERNER KANTONSSPITAL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

computed tomography; Gleason score; multimodal imaging; oncology; perfusion imaging; prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

IOPROMIDE; CONTRAST MEDIUM;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BLOOD FLOW; BLOOD VOLUME; CANCER STAGING; CAPILLARY DENSITY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; GLEASON SCORE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MALE; MEAN TRANSIT TIME; MULTIMODAL IMAGING; PARAMETERS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; CANCER GRADING; EVALUATION STUDY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATE TUMOR; RADIOGRAPHY;

AGED; BLOOD VOLUME; CONTRAST MEDIA; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84905822896     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: 15360210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000055     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, et al. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:69-90.
2. Djavan B, Kadesky K, Klopukh B, et al. Gleason scores from prostate biopsies obtained with 18-gauge biopsy needles poorly predict Gleason scores of radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol. 1998;33:261-270. (Pubitemid 28140423)
3. Nayyar R, Singh P, Gupta NP, et al. Upgrading of Gleason score on radical prostatectomy specimen compared to the pre-operative needle core biopsy: an Indian experience. Indian J Urol. 2010;26:56-59.
4. Zam NA, Tan PH, Sim HG, et al. Correlation between prostate needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: can we predict pathological outcome? Pathology. 2008;40:586-591.
5. Bonekamp D, Jacobs MA, El-Khouli R, et al. Advancements in MR imaging of the prostate: from diagnosis to interventions. Radiographics. 2011;31:677-703.
6. Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, et al. Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology. 2011;261:46-66.
7. Mueller-Lisse UG, Miller K. Imaging modalities for primary diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer. Urologe A. 2010;49:190-198.
8. Bittencourt LK, Barentsz JO, de Miranda LC, et al. Prostate MRI: diffusionweighted imaging at 1.5 T correlates better with prostatectomy Gleason grades than TRUS-guided biopsies in peripheral zone tumours. Eur Radiol. 2012; 22:468-475.
9. Kim JY, Kim SH, Kim YH, et al. Low-risk prostate cancer: the accuracy of multiparametric MR imaging for detection. Radiology. 2014;130801. [Epub ahead of print].
10. Somford DM, Hamoen EH, Futterer JJ, et al. The predictive value of endorectal 3 tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for extraprostatic extension in patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2013;190:1728-1734.
11. Selnaes KM, Heerschap A, Jensen LR, et al. Peripheral zone prostate cancer localization by multiparametric magnetic resonance at 3 T: unbiased cancer identification by matching to histopathology. Invest Radiol. 2012;47:624-633.
12. Sertdemir M, Schoenberg SO, Sourbron S, et al. Interscanner comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in prostate cancer: 1.5 versus 3 T MRI. Invest Radiol. 2013;48:92-97.
13. Somford DM, Hoeks CM, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, et al. Evaluation of diffusion-weighted MR imaging at inclusion in an active surveillance protocol for low-risk prostate cancer. Invest Radiol. 2013;48:152-157.
14. Somford DM, Hambrock T, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, et al. Initial experience with identifying high-grade prostate cancer using diffusion-weighted MR imaging (DWI) in patients with a Gleason score G/= 3 + 3 = 6 upon schematic TRUS-guided biopsy: a radical prostatectomy correlated series. Invest Radiol. 2012;47:153-158.
15. Miles KA. Perfusion CT for the assessment of tumour vascularity: which protocol? Br J Radiol. 2003;76:S36YS42.
16. Miles KA. Functional CT imaging in oncology. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(suppl 5): M134YM138.
17. Goh V, Halligan S, Taylor SA, et al. Differentiation between diverticulitis and colorectal cancer: quantitative CT perfusion measurements versus morphologic criteriaVinitial experience. Radiology. 2007;242:456-462. (Pubitemid 46150970)
18. Bisdas S, Baghi M, Smolarz A, et al. Quantitative measurements of perfusion and permeability of oropharyngeal and oral cavity cancer, recurrent disease, and associated lymph nodes using first-pass contrast-enhanced computed tomography studies. Invest Radiol. 2007;42:172-179. (Pubitemid 46232822)
19. Veit-Haibach P, Schmid D, Strobel K, et al. Combined PET/CT-perfusion in patients with head and neck cancers. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:163-173.
20. Goh V, Ng QS, Miles K. Computed tomography perfusion imaging for therapeutic assessment: has it come of age as a biomarker in oncology? Invest Radiol. 2012;47:2-4.
21. Reiner CS, Roessle M, Thiesler T, et al. Computed tomography perfusion imaging of renal cell carcinoma: systematic comparison with histopathological angiogenic and prognostic markers. Invest Radiol. 2013;48:183-191.
22. Harvey CJ, Blomley MJ, Dawson P, et al. Functional CT imaging of the acute hyperemic response to radiation therapy of the prostate gland: early experience. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2001;25:43-49. (Pubitemid 32099207)
23. Osimani M, Bellini D, Di Cristofano C, et al. Perfusion MDCT of prostate cancer: correlation of perfusion CT parameters and immunohistochemical markers of angiogenesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199:1042-1048.
24. Cyran CC, von Einem JC, Paprottka PM, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography imaging biomarkers correlated with immunohistochemistry for monitoring the effects of sorafenib on experimental prostate carcinomas. Invest Radiol. 2012;47:49-57.
25. Chen YJ, Chu WC, Pu YS, et al. Washout gradient in dynamic contrastenhanced MRI is associated with tumor aggressiveness of prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;36:912-919.
26. Ives EP, Burke MA, Edmonds PR, et al. Quantitative computed tomography perfusion of prostate cancer: correlation with whole-mount pathology. Clin Prostate Cancer. 2005;4:109-112. (Pubitemid 41474605)
27. Win Z, Ariff B, Harvey CJ, et al. Comparative study of experienced vs nonexperienced radiologists in assessing parametric CT images of the response of the prostate gland to radiotherapy. Br J Radiol. 2008;81:572-576. (Pubitemid 351958449)
28. Korporaal JG, van Vulpen M, van den Berg CA, et al. Tracer kinetic model selection for dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography imaging of prostate cancer. Invest Radiol. 2012;47:41-48.
29. Corcoran NM, Hong MK, Casey RG, et al. Upgrade in Gleason score between prostate biopsies and pathology following radical prostatectomy significantly impacts upon the risk of biochemical recurrence. BJU Int. 2011;108:E202YE210.
30. Chan TY, Partin AW, Walsh PC, et al. Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3 + 4 versus Gleason score 4 + 3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2000;56:823-827.
31. Orozco R, O'Dowd G, Kunnel B, et al. Observations on pathology trends in 62,537 prostate biopsies obtained from urology private practices in the United States. Urology. 1998;51:186-195. (Pubitemid 28093166)
32. Ng CS, Chandler AG, Wei W, et al. Reproducibility of perfusion parameters obtained from perfusion CT in lung tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 197:113-121.
33. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, et al. The 2005 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1228-1242. (Pubitemid 41232997)
34. Magi-Galluzzi C, Evans AJ, Delahunt B, et al. International society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 3: extraprostatic extension, lymphovascular invasion and locally advanced disease. Mod Pathol. 2011;24:26-38.
35. Rodgers JL, Nicewander WA. Thirteen ways to look at the correlation coefficient. Am Stat. 1988;42:59-66.
36. Somford DM, Futterer JJ, Hambrock T, et al. Diffusion and perfusion MR imaging of the prostate. Magn Reson Imaging Clin North Am. 2008; 16:685-695, ix.
37. Miles KA, Griffiths MR, Keith CJ. Blood flowYmetabolic relationships are dependent on tumour size in non-small cell lung cancer: a study using quantitative contrast-enhanced computer tomography and positron emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33:22-28. (Pubitemid 41785305)
38. Meijerink MR, van Waesberghe JH, van der Weide L, et al. Early detection of local RFA site recurrence using total liver volume perfusion CT initial experience. Acad Radiol. 2009;16:1215-1222.
39. Veit-Haibach P, Treyer V, Strobel K, et al. Feasibility of integrated CT-liver perfusion in routine FDG-PET/CT. Abdom Imaging. 2010;35:528-536.
40. Oto A, Yang C, Kayhan A, et al. Diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrastenhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation of quantitative MR parameters with Gleason score and tumor angiogenesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 197:1382-1390.
41. Franiel T, Ludemann L, Rudolph B, et al. Prostate MR imaging: tissue characterization with pharmacokinetic volume and blood flow parameters and correlation with histologic parameters. Radiology. 2009;252:101-108.
42. Vos EK, Litjens GJ, Kobus T, et al. Assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T. Eur Urol. 2013;64:448-455.
43. Sakr WA, Tefilli MV, Grignon DJ, et al. Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: a heterogeneous entity? Correlation with pathologic parameters and diseasefree survival. Urology. 2000;56:730-734.
44. Goetti R, Leschka S, Desbiolles L, et al. Quantitative computed tomography liver perfusion imaging using dynamic spiral scanning with variable pitch: feasibility and initial results in patients with cancer metastases. Invest Radiol. 2010;45:419-426.
45. Goh V, Dattani M, Farwell J, et al. Radiation dose from volumetric helical perfusion CT of the thorax, abdomen or pelvis. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:974-981.