Association of quantitative magnetic resonance imaging parameters with histological findings from MRI/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy

Canadian Journal of Urology

Volumn 22, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 7965-7972

  Dianat, Seyed Saeid ^a   Carter, H Ballentine ^a,b   Schaeffer, Edward M ^a,b   Hamper, Ulrike M ^a   Epstein, Jonathan I ^a,b   Macura, Katarzyna J ^a,b  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Biopsy; Multiparametric MRI; Prostate cancer; Ultrasonography

Indexed keywords

AGED; CANCER GRADING; ECHOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMAGE GUIDED BIOPSY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIMODAL IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATHOLOGY; PILOT STUDY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATE; PROSTATE TUMOR; TUMOR VOLUME;

AGED; HUMANS; IMAGE-GUIDED BIOPSY; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIMODAL IMAGING; NEOPLASM GRADING; PILOT PROJECTS; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; TUMOR BURDEN;

EID: 84946762404     PISSN: 11959479     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Carlson GD, Calvanese CB, Kahane H, Epstein JI. Accuracy of biopsy Gleason scores from a large uropathology laboratory: use of a diagnostic protocol to minimize observer variability. Urology 1998;51(4):525-529.
2. Tilki D, Schlenker B, John M et al. Clinical and pathologic predictors of Gleason sum upgrading in patients after radical prostatectomy: results from a single institution series. Urol Oncol 2011;29(5):508-514.
3. 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(5):902-909.
4. 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.
5. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong H et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol 2013;64(5):713-719.
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(1):162-172.
7. Sonn GA, Margolis DJ, Marks LS. Target detection: Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy. Urol Oncol 2014;32(6):903-911.
8. Sato C, Naganawa S, Nakamura T et al. Differentiation of noncancerous tissue and cancer lesions by apparent diffusion coefficient values in transition and peripheral zones of the prostate. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005;21(3):258-262.
9. Kozlowski P, Chang SD, Jones EC, Berean KW, Chen H, Goldenberg SL. Combined diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis--correlation with biopsy and histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006;24(1):108-113.
10. Engelbrecht MR, Huisman HJ, Laheij RJ et al. Discrimination of prostate cancer from normal peripheral zone and central gland tissue by using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2003;229(1):248-254.
11. Dianat SS, Carter HB, Macura KJ. Performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation and management of clinically low-risk prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2014;32(1):39 e31-10.
12. Bittencourt LK, Barentsz JO, de Miranda LC, Gasparetto EL. Prostate MRI: diffusion-weighted imaging at 1.5T correlates better with prostatectomy Gleason Grades than TRUS-guided biopsies in peripheral zone tumours. Eur Radiol 2012;22(2):468-475.
13. 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(2):453-461.
14. 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(3):677-703.
15. Mullins JK, Bonekamp D, Landis P et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings in men with low-risk prostate cancer followed using active surveillance. BJU Int 2013;111(7):1037-1045.
16. Peng Y, Jiang Y, Yang C et al. Quantitative analysis of multiparametric prostate MR images: differentiation between prostate cancer and normal tissue and correlation with Gleason score--a computer-aided diagnosis development study. Radiology 2013;267(3):787-796.
17. Nagel KN, Schouten MG, Hambrock T et al. Differentiation of prostatitis and prostate cancer by using diffusion-weighted MR imaging and MR-guided biopsy at 3 T. Radiology 2013;267(1):164-172.
18. Watanabe Y, Nagayama M, Araki T et al. Targeted biopsy based on ADC map in the detection and localization of prostate cancer: a feasibility study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013;37(5):1168-1177.
19. Watanabe Y, Terai A, Araki T et al. Detection and localization of prostate cancer with the targeted biopsy strategy based on ADC map: a prospective large-scale cohort study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012;35(6):1414-1421.
20. Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T et al. Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology 2011;259(3):775-784.
21. Turkbey B, Shah VP, Pang Y et al. Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? Radiology 2011;258(2):488-495.
22. Oto A, Yang C, Kayhan A et al. Diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation of quantitative MR parameters with Gleason score and tumor angiogenesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;197(6):1382-1390.
23. Kobus T, Vos PC, Hambrock T et al. Prostate cancer aggressiveness: in vivo assessment of MR spectroscopy and diffusion-weighted imaging at 3 T. Radiology 2012;265(2):457-467.
24. Rosenkrantz AB, Triolo MJ, Melamed J, Rusinek H, Taneja SS, Deng FM. Whole-lesion apparent diffusion coefficient metrics as a marker of percentage Gleason 4 component within Gleason 7 prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015;41(3):708-714.
25. Nagarajan R, Margolis D, Raman S et al. Correlation of Gleason scores with diffusion-weighted imaging findings of prostate cancer. Adv Urol 2012;2012:374805.
26. Zhang J, Xiu J, Dong Y et al. Magnetic resonance imagingdirected biopsy improves the prediction of prostate cancer aggressiveness compared with a 12core transrectal ultrasoundguided prostate biopsy. Mol Med Rep 2014;9(5):1989-1997.
27. Wang XZ, Wang B, Gao ZQ et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of prostate cancer: correlation between apparent diffusion coefficient values and tumor proliferation. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009;29(6):1360-1366.
28. 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(2):485-494.
29. Ocak I, Bernardo M, Metzger G et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer at 3 T: a study of pharmacokinetic parameters. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189(4):849.
30. Roethke MC, Kuru TH, Schultze S et al. Evaluation of the ESUR PI-RADS scoring system for multiparametric MRI of the prostate with targeted MR/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy at 3.0 Tesla. Eur Radiol 2014;24(2):344-352.