Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Challenges of Implementation

Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology

Volumn 44, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 26-37

  Loch, Ronald ^a   Fowler, Kathryn ^a   Schmidt, Ryan ^a   Ippolito, Joseph ^a   Siegel, Cary ^a   Narra, Vamsi ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GADOLINIUM;

CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; DISEASE SURVEILLANCE; DYNAMIC CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; ENDORECTAL COIL; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; MAGNETIC FIELD; MULTIPARAMETRIC PROSTATE MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PROSTATE; PROSTATE ADENOCARCINOMA; PROSTATE CANCER; RADIATION EQUIPMENT; REVIEW; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; T2 WEIGHTED IMAGING; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE GUIDED BIOPSY; MALE; MULTIMODAL IMAGING; PATHOLOGY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TRENDS; UROLOGY;

HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE-GUIDED BIOPSY; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MULTIMODAL IMAGING; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UROLOGY;

EID: 84916204748     PISSN: 03630188     EISSN: 15356302     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1067/j.cpradiol.2014.05.009     Document Type: Review

References (64)

1. Siegel R., Ma J., Zou Z., et al. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 2014, 64(1):9-29.
2. Andriole G.L., Crawford E.D., Grubb R.L., et al. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med 2009, 360(13):1310-1319.
3. Rosario D.J., Lane J.A., Metcalfe C., et al. Short term outcomes of prostate biopsy in men tested for cancer by prostate specific antigen: Prospective evaluation within ProtecT study. Br Med J 2012, 344:d7894.
4. Moyer V.A. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2012, 157(2):120-134.
5. Iversen P., Madsen P.O., Corle D.K. Radical prostatectomy versus expectant treatment for early carcinoma of the prostate. Twenty-three year follow-up of a prospective randomized study. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl 1995, 172:65-72.
6. Wilt T.J., Brawer M.K., Jones K.M., et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2012, 367(3):203-213.
7. Bill-Axelson A., Holmberg L., Ruutu M., et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2011, 364(18):1708-1717.
8. Welch H.G., Albertsen P.C. Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment after the introduction of prostate-specific antigen screening: 1986-2005. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009, 101(19):1325-1329.
9. Ganz P.A., Barry J.M., Burke W., et al. National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference: Role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med 2012, 156(8):591-595.
10. Turkbey B., Mani H., Aras O., et al. Prostate cancer: Can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance?. Radiology 2013, 268(1):144-152.
11. Stamatakis L., Siddiqui M.M., Nix J.W., et al. Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer. Cancer 2013, 119(18):3359-3366.
12. Leake J.L., Hardman R., Ojili V., et al. Prostate MRI: Access to and current practice of prostate MRI in the United States. J Am Coll Radiol 2014, 11(2):156-160.
13. Dickinson L., Ahmed H.U., 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(4):477-494.
14. Barentsz J.O., Richenberg J., Clements R., et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012, 22(4):746-757.
15. Kirkham A.P.S., Haslam P., Keanie J.Y., et al. Prostate MRI: Who, when, and how? Report from a UK consensus meeting. Clin Radiol 2013, 68(10):1016-1023.
16. Hoeks C.M.A., Barentsz J.O., Hambrock T., et al. Prostate cancer: Multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 2011, 261(1):46-66.
17. Hricak H., White S., Vigneron D., et al. Carcinoma of the prostate gland: MR imaging with pelvic phased-array coils versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Radiology 1994, 193(3):703-709.
18. Fütterer J.J., Engelbrecht M.R., Jager G.J., et al. Prostate cancer: Comparison of local staging accuracy of pelvic phased-array coil alone versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Local staging accuracy of prostate cancer using endorectal coil MR imaging. Eur Radiol 2007, 17(4):1055-1065.
19. Beyersdorff D., Taymoorian K., Knösel T., et al. MRI of prostate cancer at 1.5 and 3.0T: Comparison of image quality in tumor detection and staging. Am J Roentgenol 2005, 185(5):1214-1220.
20. Torricelli P., Cinquantini F., Ligabue G., et al. Comparative evaluation between external phased array coil at 3T and endorectal coil at 1.5T: Preliminary results. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2006, 30(3):355-361.
21. Park B.K., Kim B., Kim C.K., et al. Comparison of phased-array 3.0-T and endorectal 1.5-T magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of local staging accuracy for prostate cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2007, 31(4):534-538.
22. Heijmink S.W.T.P.J., Fütterer J.J., Hambrock T., et al. Prostate cancer: Body-array versus endorectal coil MR imaging at 3T-comparison of image quality, localization, and staging performance. Radiology 2007, 244(1):184-195.
23. Turkbey B., Merino M.J., Gallardo E.C., et al. Comparison of endorectal coil and nonendorectal coil T2W and diffusion-weighted MRI at 3 Tesla for localizing prostate cancer: Correlation with whole-mount histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013, 39(6):1443-1448.
24. Langer D.L., van der Kwast T.H., Evans A.J., et al. 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(2):327-334.
25. Delongchamps N.B., 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(9):1411-1418.
26. Hambrock T., Somford D.M., Huisman H.J., et al. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 2011, 259(2):453-461.
27. Langer D.L., van der Kwast T.H., Evans A.J., et al. Intermixed normal tissue within prostate cancer: Effect on MR imaging measurements of apparent diffusion coefficient and T2-sparse versus dense cancers. Radiology 2008, 249(3):900-908.
28. Zelhof B., Pickles M., Liney G., et al. Correlation of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance data with cellularity in prostate cancer. BJU Int 2009, 103(7):883-888.
29. Yoshizako T., Wada A., Hayashi T., et al. Usefulness of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate transition-zone cancer. Acta Radiologica 2008, 49(10):1207-1213.
30. 2. Am J Roentgenol 2010, 194(1):W33-W37.
31. Katahira K., Takahara T., Kwee T.C., et al. Ultra-high-b-value diffusion-weighted MR imaging for the detection of prostate cancer: Evaluation in 201 cases with histopathological correlation. Eur Radiol 2011, 21(1):188-196.
32. 2). J Magn Reson Imaging 2012, 36(1):198-205.
33. Rosenkrantz A.B., Hindman N., Lim R.P., et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of the prostate: Comparison of b1000 and b2000 image sets for index lesion detection. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013, 38(3):694-700.
34. Tudorica L.A., Oh K.Y., Roy N., et al. A feasible high spatiotemporal resolution breast DCE-MRI protocol for clinical settings. Magn Reson Imaging 2012, 30(9):1257-1267.
35. Li X., Huang W., Rooney W.D. Signal-to-noise ratio, contrast-to-noise ratio and pharmacokinetic modeling considerations in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 2012, 30(9):1313-1322.
36. Verma S., Turkbey B., Muradyan N., et al. Overview of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in prostate cancer diagnosis and management. Am J Roentgenol 2012, 198(6):1277-1288.
37. Rosenkrantz A.B., Sabach A., Babb J.S., et al. Prostate cancer: Comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI techniques for localization of peripheral zone tumor. Am J Roentgenol 2013, 201(3):W471-W478.
38. Wang L., Mazaheri Y., Zhang J., et al. Assessment of biologic aggressiveness of prostate cancer: Correlation of MR signal intensity with Gleason grade after radical prostatectomy. Radiology 2008, 246(1):168-176.
39. Van As N.J., de Souza N.M., Riches S.F., et al. A study of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in men with untreated localised prostate cancer on active surveillance. Eur Urol 2009, 56(6):981-987.
40. Lee D.H., Koo K.C., Lee S.H., et al. Tumor lesion diameter on diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging could help predict insignificant prostate cancer in patients eligible for active surveillance: Preliminary analysis. J Urol 2013, 190(4):1213-1217.
41. Rosenkrantz A.B., Taneja S.S. Radiologist, be aware: Ten pitfalls that confound the interpretation of multiparametric prostate MRI. Am J Roentgenol 2014, 202(1):109-120.
42. Cruz M., Tsuda K., Narumi Y., et al. Characterization of low-intensity lesions in the peripheral zone of prostate on pre-biopsy endorectal coil MR imaging. Eur Radiol 2002, 12(2):357-365.
43. Barrett T., Vargas H.A., Akin O., et al. Value of the hemorrhage exclusion sign on T1-weighted prostate MR images for the detection of prostate cancer. Radiology 2012, 263(3):751-757.
44. Vargas H.A., Akin O., Shukla-Dave A., et al. Performance characteristics of MR imaging in the evaluation of clinically low-risk prostate cancer: A prospective study. Radiology 2012, 265(2):478-487.
45. Akin O., Sala E., Moskowitz C.S., et al. Transition zone prostate cancers: Features, detection, localization, and staging at endorectal MR imaging. Radiology 2006, 239(3):784-792.
46. Haider M.A., van der Kwast T.H., Tanguay J., et al. Combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI for localization of prostate cancer. Am J Roentgenol 2007, 189(2):323-328.
47. Hoeks C.M.A., Hambrock T., Yakar D., et al. Transition zone prostate cancer: Detection and localization with 3-T multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology 2013, 266(1):207-217.
48. Li H., Sugimura K., Kaji Y., et al. Conventional MRI capabilities in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in the transition zone. Am J Roentgenol 2006, 186(3):729-742.
49. Oto A., Kayhan A., Jiang Y., et al. Prostate cancer: Differentiation of central gland cancer from benign prostatic hyperplasia by using diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2010, 257(3):715-723.
50. Portalez D., Mozer P., Cornud F., et al. Validation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in a cohort of repeat biopsy patients. Eur Urol 2012, 62(6):986-996.
51. Fiard G., Hohn N., Descotes J.-L., et al. Targeted MRI-guided prostate biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer: Initial clinical experience with real-time 3-dimensional transrectal ultrasound guidance and magnetic resonance/transrectal ultrasound image fusion. Urology 2013, 81(6):1372-1378.
52. Schimmöller L., Quentin M., Arsov C., et al. Inter-reader agreement of the ESUR score for prostate MRI using in-bore MRI-guided biopsies as the reference standard. Eur Radiol 2013, 23(11):3185-3190.
53. Rosenkrantz A.B., Kim S., Lim R.P., et al. Prostate cancer localization using multiparametric MR imaging: Comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and Likert scales. Radiology 2013, 269(2):482-492.
54. Rosenkrantz A.B., Lim R.P., Haghighi M., et al. Comparison of interreader reproducibility of the prostate imaging reporting and data system and Likert scales for evaluation of multiparametric prostate MRI. Am J Roentgenol 2013, 201(4):W612-W618.
55. Turkbey B., Pinto P.A., Mani H., et al. Prostate cancer: Value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3T for detection-histopathologic correlation. Radiology 2010, 255(1):89-99.
56. Turkbey B., Mani H., Shah V., et al. Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: Histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. J Urol 2011, 186(5):1818-1824.
57. Sehdev A.E., Pan C.C., Epstein J.I. Comparative analysis of sampling methods for grossing radical prostatectomy specimens performed for nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostatic adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol 2001, 32(5):494-499.
58. Rastinehad A.R., Turkbey B., Salami S.S., et al. Improving detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: MRI/TRUS fusion-guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 2013, 191(6):1749-1754.
59. Walton Diaz A., Hoang A.N., Turkbey B., et al. Can magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy improve cancer detection in enlarged prostates?. J Urol 2013, 190(6):2020-2025.
60. Baur A.D.J., Maxeiner A., Franiel T., et al. Evaluation of the prostate imaging reporting and data system for the detection of prostate cancer by the results of targeted biopsy of the prostate. Invest Radiol 2014, 49(6):411-420.
61. Hoeks C.M.A., Somford D.M., van Oort I.M., et al. Value of 3-T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance-guided biopsy for early risk restratification in active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer: A prospective multicenter cohort study. Invest Radiol 2014, 49(3):165-172.
62. Numao N., Yoshida S., Komai Y., et al. Usefulness of pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical variables to reduce initial prostate biopsy in men with suspected clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2013, 190(2):502-508.
63. Mazaheri Y., Vargas H.A., Nyman G., et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI of the prostate at 3.0T: Comparison of endorectal coil (ERC) MRI and phased-array coil (PAC) MRI-The impact of SNR on ADC measurement. Eur J Radiol 2013, 82(10):e515-e520.
64. Peng Y., Jiang Y., Antic T., et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient for prostate cancer imaging: Impact of B values. Am J Roentgenol 2014, 202(3):W247-W253.