Evolution of multi-parametric MRI quantitative parameters following transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 343-351

  Latifoltojar, A ^a   Dikaios, N ^a   Ridout, A ^b   Moore, C ^b   Illing, R ^b   Kirkham, A ^b   Taylor, S ^a,b   Halligan, S ^a,b   Atkinson, D ^a   Allen, C ^b   Emberton, M ^b   Punwani, S ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON HOSPITALS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; CONTRAST MEDIUM;

ADULT; AGED; APPARENT DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; DUNNETT POST TESTING; DYNAMIC CONTRAST ENHANCED MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; EVOLUTION; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INFORMED CONSENT; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING-ULTRASOUND FUSION-GUIDED PROSTATE BIOPSY DEVICE; MALE; MAXIMUM ENHANCEMENT; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIPARAMETRIC MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PERIPHERAL ZONE; PHASE TRANSITION; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; RELAXATION TIME; SLOPE OF ENHANCEMENT; TRANSITION ZONE; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY GUIDED BIOPSY; TREATMENT DURATION; CANCER GRADING; ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND GUIDED FINE NEEDLE BIOPSY; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE PROCESSING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

ADULT; AGED; CONTRAST MEDIA; DIFFUSION MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND-GUIDED FINE NEEDLE ASPIRATION; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84947041161     PISSN: 13657852     EISSN: 14765608     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/pcan.2015.33     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y, Yamamoto T, Egashira N, Imai S, et al. Prostate cancer: relationships between postbiopsy hemorrhage and tumor detectability at MR diagnosis. Radiology. 2008; 248: 531-539.
2. Kaji Y, Kurhanewicz J, Hricak H, Sokolov DL, Huang LR, Nelson SJ, et al. Localizing prostate cancer in the presence of postbiopsy changes on MR images: role of proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology. 1998; 206: 785-790.
3. Qayyum A, Coakley FV, Lu Y, Olpin JD, Wu L, Yeh BM, et al. Organ-confined prostate cancer: effect of prior transrectal biopsy on endorectal MRI and MR spectroscopic imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004; 174: 1079-1083.
4. Ikonen S, Kivisaari L, Vehmas T, Tervahartiala P, Salo JO, Taari K, et al. Optimal timing of post-biopsy MR imaging of the prostate. Acta Radiol. 2001; 42: 70-73.
5. Haffner J, Lemaitre L, Puech P, Haber GP, Leroy X, Jones JS, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-Targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. BJU Int. 2011; 108: E171-E178.
6. Roethke M, Anastasiadis AG, Lichy M, Werner M, Wagner P, Kruck S, 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. Moore C M, Kasivisvanathan K, Eggener S, Emberton M, Futtere JJ, Gill IS, et al. Standards of reporting for MRI-Targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. Eur Urol. 2013; 64: 477-494.
8. Westphalen AC, Rosenkrantz AB. Prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS): reflections on early experience with a standardized interpretation scheme for multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014; 202: 12.
9. Fink KG, Hutarew G, Pytel A, Esterbauer, Jungwirth A, Dietze O, et al. One 10-core prostate biopsy is superior to two sets of sextant prostate biopsies. BJU Int. 2003; 92: 385-388.
10. Zelhof B, Lowry M, Rodrigues G, Kraus S, Turnbull L. Description of magnetic resonance imaging-derived enhancement variables in pathologically confirmed prostate cancer and normal peripheral zone regions. BJU Int. 2009; 104: 621-627.
11. Rosenkrantz AB, Kopec M, Kong X, Melamed J, Dakwar G, Babb JS, et al. Prostate cancer vs. post-biopsy hemorrhage: diagnosis with T2- And diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010; 31: 1387-1394.
12. Chen ME, Troncoso P, Johnston DA, Tang K, Babaian RJ. Optimization of prostate biopsy strategy using computer based analysis. J Urol. 1997; 158: 2168-2175.
13. Dikaios N, Alkalbani J, Abd-Alazeez M, Singh Sidhu H, Kirkham A, Ahmed H U, et al. Zone-specific logistic regression models improve classification of prostate cancer on multi-parametric MRI. Eur Radiol. 2015; 25: 523-532.
14. Mirowitz SA, Brown JJ, Heiken JP. Evaluation of the prostate and prostatic carcinoma with gadolinium-enhanced endorectal coil MR imaging. Radiology. 1993; 186: 153-157.
15. White S, Hricak H, Forstner R, Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron DB, Zaloudek CJ, et al. Prostate cancer: effect of postbiopsy hemorrhage on interpretation of MR images. Radiology. 1995; 195: 385-390.
16. Rosenkrantz AB, Kong X, Niver BE, Berkman DS, Melamed J, Babb JS, et al. Prostate cancer: comparison of tumor visibility on trace diffusion-weighted images and the apparent diffusion coefficient map. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 196: 123-129.
17. Atlas SW, DuBois P, Singer MB, Lu D. Diffusion measurements in intracranial hematomas: implications for MR imaging of acute stroke. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2000; 21: 1190-1194.
18. Di Giovanni P, Azlan CA, Ahearn TS, Semple SI, Gilbert FJ, Redpath TW. The accuracy of pharmacokinetic parameter measurement in DCE-MRI of the breast at 3 T. Phys Med Biol. 2010; 55: 121-132.
19. Lu T-LC, Meuli RA, Marques-Vidal PM, Bize P, De nys A, Schmidt S. Interobserver and intraobserver variability of the apparent diffusion coefficient in treated malignant hepatic lesions on a 3.0 T machine: measurements in the whole lesion versus in the area with the most restricted diffusion. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010; 32: 647-653.
20. Laurence Klotz. Active surveillance with selective delayed intervention is the way to manage 'good-risk' prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol. 2005; 2: 136-142.
21. Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A. Clinical results of longterm follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28: 126-131.
22. Zakian KL, Shukla-Dave A, Ackerstaff E, Hricak H, Koutcher JA. 1H magnetic resonance spectroscopy of prostate cancer: biomarkers for tumor characterization. Cancer Biomark. 2008; 4: 263-276.
23. Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, Kattan MW, Pucar D, Kuroiwa K, Chen HN, et al. The utility of magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for predicting insignificant prostate cancer: an initial analysis. BJU Int. 2007; 99: 786-793.
24. Epstein JI, Chan DW, Sokoll LJ, Walsh PC, Cox JL, Rittenhouse H, et al. Nonpalpable stage T1C prostate cancer: prediction of insignificant disease using free/total prostate specific antigen levels and needle biopsy findings. J Urol. 1998; 160: 2407-2411.