Multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of prostate cancer

CA Cancer Journal for Clinicians

Volumn 66, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 326-336

  Turkbey, Baris ^a   Brown, Anna M ^a   Sankineni, Sandeep ^a   Wood, Bradford J ^b   Pinto, Peter A ^a   Choyke, Peter L ^a  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

active surveillance; high risk; multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

GADOLINIUM; PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE; AFRICAN AMERICAN; APPARENT DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT; BIOCHEMICAL RECURRENCE; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER GRADING; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER STAGING; CAUCASIAN; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION; DYNAMIC CONTRAST ENHANCED MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; FAMILY HISTORY; GLEASON SCORE; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HUMAN; IMAGE GUIDED BIOPSY; LOWER URINARY TRACT SYMPTOM; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MULTIPARAMETRIC MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATIENT CARE PLANNING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; T1 WEIGHTED MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; T2 WEIGHTED MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; TREATMENT PLANNING; TUMOR BIOPSY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH SURVEY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROCEDURES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84947967299     PISSN: 00079235     EISSN: 15424863     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3322/caac.21333     Document Type: Review

References (97)

1. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2014. Atlanta, GA; American Cancer Society; 2014.
2. Moyer VA; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:120-135.
3. Turkbey B, Choyke PL. Decade in review-imaging: a decade in image-guided prostate biopsy. Nat Rev Urol. 2014;11:611-612.
4. Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM, Sigal BM, Johnstone IM. Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. JAMA. 1999;281:1395-1400.
5. Ploussard G, Epstein JI, Montironi R, et al. The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2011;60:291-303.
6. Chamie K, Sonn GA, Finley DS, et al. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in delineating clinically significant prostate cancer. Urology. 2014;83:369-375.
7. Esen T, Turkbey B, Patel A, Futterer J. Multiparametric MRI in prostate cancer [serial online]. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:296810.
8. Turkbey B, Albert PS, Kurdziel K, Choyke PL. Imaging localized prostate cancer: current approaches and new developments. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:1471-1480.
9. American College of Radiology. MR Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, Version 2.0. acr.org/∼/media/ACR/Documents/PDF/QualitySafety/Resources/PIRADS/PIRADSV2.pdf. Accessed April 1, 2015.
10. Gupta RT, Kauffman CR, Polascik TJ, Taneja SS, Rosenkrantz AB. The state of prostate MRI in 2013. Oncology (Williston Park). 2013;27:262-270.
11. Engelbrecht MR, Jager GJ, Laheij RJ, Verbeek AL, van Lier HJ, Barentsz JO. Local staging of prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:2294-2302.
12. Kim BS, Kim TH, Kwon TG, Yoo ES. 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, Fütterer JJ, Hambrock T, et al. Prostate cancer: body-array versus endorectal coil MR imaging at 3 T–comparison of image quality, localization, and staging performance. Radiology. 2007;244:184-195.
14. Lee SH, Park KK, Choi KH, et al. Is endorectal coil necessary for the staging of clinically localized prostate cancer? Comparison of non-endorectal versus endorectal MR imaging. World J Urol. 2010;28:667-672.
15. Cornud F, Belin X, Flam T, et al. Local staging of prostate cancer by endorectal MRI using fast spin-echo sequences: prospective correlation with pathological findings after radical prostatectomy. Br J Urol. 1996;77:843-850.
16. Heenan SD. Magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2004;7:282-288.
17. Weinreb JC, Blume JD, Coakley FV, et al. Prostate cancer: sextant localization at MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging before prostatectomy. Radiology. 2009;251:122-133.
18. 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.
19. 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;186:1818-1824.
20. De Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Fütterer JJ, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202:343-351.
21. Sankineni S, Osman M, Choyke PL. Functional MRI in prostate cancer detection [serial online]. Biomed Res Int 2014:590638, 2014.
22. Gibbs P, Tozer DJ, Liney GP, Turnbull LW. Comparison of quantitative T2 mapping and diffusion-weighted imaging in the normal and pathologic prostate. Magn Reson Med. 2001;46:1054-1058.
23. Turkbey B, Shah V, Pang Y, Bernardo M. Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3T MR images? Radiology. 2011;258:488-495.
24. 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;197:1382-1390.
25. Hara N, Okuizumi M, Koike H, Kawaguchi M, Bilim V. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) is a useful modality for the precise detection and staging of early prostate cancer. Prostate. 2005;62:140-147.
26. Tanimoto A, Nakashima J, Kohno H, Shinmoto H, Kuribayashi S. 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.
27. Puech P, Sufana-Iancu A, Renard B, Lemaitre L. Prostate MRI: can we do without DCE sequences in 2013? Diagn Interv Imaging. 2013;94:1299-1311.
28. Panebianco V, Sciarra A, Lisi D, et al. Prostate cancer: 1HMRS-DCEMR at 3T versus [(18)F]choline PET/CT in the detection of local prostate cancer recurrence in men with biochemical progression after radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:700-708.
29. Boonsirikamchai P, Kaur H, Kuban DA, Jackson E, Hou P, Choi H. Use of maximum slope images generated from dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI to detect locally recurrent prostate carcinoma after prostatectomy: a practical approach. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198:W228-W236.
30. Casciani E, Polettini E, Carmenini E, et al. Endorectal and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for detection of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:1187-1192.
31. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA. 2015;313:390-397.
32. Baco E, Rud E, Eri LM, et al. A Randomized controlled trial to assess and compare the outcomes of two-core prostate biopsy guided by fused magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound images and traditional 12-core systematic biopsy [published online ahead of print April 7, 2015]. Eur Urol. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.03.041.
33. Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Blondin D, et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided in-bore biopsy to MRI-ultrasound fusion and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol. 2015;68:713-720.
34. Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, Mendhiratta N, et al. Relationship between prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), biopsy indication, and MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy outcomes [published online ahead of print June 22, 2015]. Eur Urol. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.005.
35. Rouse P, Shaw G, Ahmed HU, Freeman A, Allen C, Emberton M. Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging to rule-in and rule-out clinically important prostate cancer in men at risk: a cohort study. Urol Int. 2011;87:49-53.
36. Salami S, Ben-Levi E, Yaskiv O. In patients with a previous negative prostate biopsy and a suspicious lesion on magnetic resonance imaging, is a 12-core biopsy still necessary in addition to a targeted biopsy? BJU Int. 2015;115:562-570.
37. Zhang J, Xiu J, Dong Y, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-directed biopsy improves the prediction of prostate cancer aggressiveness compared with a 12-core transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Mol Med Rep. 2014;9:1989-1997.
38. Rosenkrantz AB, Verma S, Turkbey B. Prostate cancer: top places where tumors hide on multiparametric MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204:W449-W456.
39. Volkin D, Turkbey B, Hoang AN, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and subsequent MRI/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy increase the detection of anteriorly located prostate cancers. BJU Int. 2014;114:E43-E49.
40. Pepe P, Dibenedetto G, Pennisi M, Fraggetta F, Colecchia M, Aragona F. Detection rate of anterior prostate cancer in 226 patients submitted to initial and repeat transperineal biopsy. Urol Int. 2014;93:189-192.
41. Nix JW, Turkbey B, Hoang A, et al. Very distal apical prostate tumours: identification on multiparametric MRI at 3 Tesla. BJU Int. 2012;110(11 pt B):E694-E700.
42. Sankineni S, George AK, Brown AM, et al. Posterior subcapsular prostate cancer: Identification with mpMRI and MRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40:2557-2565.
43. Lawrentschuk N, Haider MA, Daljeet N, et al. “Prostatic evasive anterior tumours”: the role of magnetic resonance imaging. BJU Int. 2010;105:1231-1236.
44. Brown AM, Elbuluk O, Mertan F, et al. Recent advances in image-guided targeted prostate biopsy. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40:1788-1799.
45. Overduin CG, Fütterer JJ, Barentsz JO. MRI-guided biopsy for prostate cancer detection: a systematic review of current clinical results. Curr Urol Rep. 2013;14:209-213.
46. Haffner J, Lemaitre L, Puech P, 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(8 pt 2):E171-E178.
47. Ong WL, Weerakoon M, Huang S, et al. Transperineal biopsy prostate cancer detection in first biopsy and repeat biopsy after negative transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: the Victorian Transperineal Biopsy Collaboration experience. BJU Int. 2015;116:568-576.
48. Grummet JP, Weerakoon M, Huang S, et al. Sepsis and “superbugs”: should we favour the transperineal over the transrectal approach for prostate biopsy? BJU Int. 2014;114:384-388.
49. Fütterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P, et al. Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature [published online ahead of print February 2, 2015]. Eur Urol. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.013.
50. Itatani R, Namimoto T, Atsuji S, et al. Negative predictive value of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: outcome of 5-year follow-up in men with negative findings on initial MRI studies. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:1740-1745.
51. Arumainayagam N, Ahmed H, Moore C. Multiparametric MR imaging for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: a validation cohort study with transperineal template prostate mapping as the reference standard. Radiology. 2013;268:761-769.
52. Giannarini G, Zazzara M, Rossanese M, et al. Will multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging be the future tool to detect clinically significant prostate cancer [serial online]? Front Oncol. 2014;4:294.
53. Ouzzane A, Puech P, Villers A. How accurately can MRI detect indolent disease? Curr Opin Urol. 2014;24:264-269.
54. De Visschere PJ, Naesens L, Libbrecht L, et al. What kind of prostate cancers do we miss on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging [published online ahead of print July 3, 2015]? Eur Radiol. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-3894-x.
55. Le JD, Stephenson S, Brugger M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy for prediction of final prostate pathology. J Urol. 2014;192:1367-1373.
56. Finley DS, Margolis D, Raman SS, et al. Fine-tuning robot-assisted radical prostatectomy planning with MRI. Urol Oncol. 2013;31:766-775.
57. Hricak H, Wang L, Wei DC, et al. The role of preoperative endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in the decision regarding whether to preserve or resect neurovascular bundles during radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer. 2004;100:2655-2663.
58. Park BH, Jeon HG, Jeong BC, et al. Influence of magnetic resonance imaging in the decision to preserve or resect neurovascular bundles at robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2014;192:82-88.
59. Tabatabaei S, Saylor PJ, Coen J, Dahl DM. Prostate cancer imaging: what surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists want to know. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:1263-1266.
60. Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, Akin O, et al. Preoperative nomograms incorporating magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2012;109:1315-1322.
61. Rais-Bahrami S, Türkbey B, Rastinehad AR, et al. Natural history of small index lesions suspicious for prostate cancer on multiparametric MRI: recommendations for interval imaging follow-up. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2014;20:293-298.
62. Anderson J, Burney S, Brooker JE, et al. Anxiety in the management of localised prostate cancer by active surveillance. BJU Int. 2014;114(suppl 1):55-61.
63. Radtke JP, Boxler S, Kuru TH, et al. Improved detection of anterior fibromuscular stroma and transition zone prostate cancer using biparametric and multiparametric MRI with MRI-targeted biopsy and MRI-US fusion guidance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2015;18:288-296.
64. Feng TS, Sharif-Afshar AR, Smith SC, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging localizes established extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2015;33:109.e15-109.e22.
65. Boesen L, Chabanova E, Løgager V, Balslev I, Mikines K, Thomsen HS. Prostate cancer staging with extracapsular extension risk scoring using multiparametric MRI: a correlation with histopathology. Eur Radiol. 2015;25:1776-1785.
66. Gupta RT, Faridi KF, Singh AA, et al. Comparing 3-T multiparametric MRI and the Partin tables to predict organ-confined prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol. 2014;32:1292-1299.
67. Turkbey B, Pinto PA, Mani H, et al. Prostate cancer: value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection–histopathologic correlation. Radiology. 2010;255:89-99.
68. Park JJ, Kim CK, Park SY, Park BK, Lee HM, Cho SW. Prostate cancer: role of pretreatment multiparametric 3-T MRI in predicting biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202:W459-W465.
69. Ho R, George A, Frye T, et al. Can mpMRI predict biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy? Implications for preoperative staging and surgical planning [abstract]. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(suppl 7). Abstract 161.
70. Lopes Dias J, Lucas R, Magalhães Pina J, et al. Post-treated prostate cancer: normal findings and signs of local relapse on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40:2814-2838.
71. Cha D, Kim CK, Park SY, Park JJ, Park BK. Evaluation of suspected soft tissue lesion in the prostate bed after radical prostatectomy using 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;33:407-412.
72. Haider MA, Chung P, Sweet J, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for localization of recurrent prostate cancer after external beam radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;70:425-430.
73. Kanthabalan A, Shah T, Arya M, et al. The FORECAST Study—Focal Recurrent Assessment and Salvage Treatment for Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer [published online ahead of print 2015]. Contemp Clin Trials. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2015.07.004.
74. Parivar F, Hricak H, Shinohara K, et al. Detection of locally recurrent prostate cancer after cryosurgery: evaluation by transrectal magnetic resonance imaging and three-dimensional proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Urology. 1996;48:594-599.
75. Ahmed HU, Cathcart P, McCartan N, et al. Focal salvage therapy for localized prostate cancer recurrence after external beam radiotherapy: a pilot study. Cancer. 2012;118:4148-4155.
76. Ménard C, Iupati D, Publicover J, et al. MR-guided prostate biopsy for planning of focal salvage after radiation therapy. Radiology. 2015;274:181-191.
77. Sundi D, Ross AE, Humphreys EV, et al. African American men with very low-risk prostate cancer exhibit adverse oncologic outcomes after radical prostatectomy: should active surveillance still be an option for them? J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:2991-2997.
78. Yamoah K, Deville C, Vapiwala N, et al. African American men with low-grade prostate cancer have increased disease recurrence after prostatectomy compared with Caucasian men. Urol Oncol. 2015;33:70.e15-70.e22.
79. Sundi D, Kryvenko ON, Carter HB, Ross AE, Epstein JI, Schaeffer EM. Pathological examination of radical prostatectomy specimens in men with very low risk disease at biopsy reveals distinct zonal distribution of cancer in black American men. J Urol. 2014;191:60-67.
80. Carter BS, Beaty TH, Steinberg GD, Childs B, Walsh PC. Mendelian inheritance of familial prostate cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992;89:3367-3371.
81. Carter BS, Bova GS, Beaty TH, et al. Hereditary prostate cancer: epidemiologic and clinical features. J Urol. 1993;150:797-802.
82. Bock CH, Peyser PA, Gruber SB, Bonnell SE, Tedesco KL, Cooney KA. Prostate cancer early detection practices among men with a family history of disease. Urology. 2003;62:470-475.
83. deSouza NM, Morgan VA, Bancroft E, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI for detecting prostate tumour in men at increased genetic risk [serial online]. Eur J Radiol Open. 2014;1:22-27.
84. Abern MR, Bassett MR, Tsivian M, et al. Race is associated with discontinuation of active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer: results from the Duke Prostate Center. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2013;16:85-90.
85. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65:5-29.
86. National Cancer Institute. Cancer Health Disparities. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2015. cancer.gov/. Accessed April 1, 2015.
87. Hoffman RM, Gilliland FD, Eley JW, et al. Racial and ethnic differences in advanced-stage prostate cancer: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:388-395.
88. 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;259:453-461.
89. 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;259:775-784.
90. Sankineni S, Wood BJ, Rais-Bahrami S, et al. Image-guided focal therapy for prostate cancer. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2014;20:492-497.
91. Le Nobin J, Rosenkrantz AV, Villers A, et al. Image guided focal therapy for magnetic resonance imaging visible prostate cancer: defining a 3-dimensional treatment margin based on magnetic resonance imaging histology co-registration analysis. J Urol. 2015;194:364-370.
92. Polascik TJ. Focal therapy of prostate cancer: making steady progress toward a first-line image-guided treatment modality. Curr Opin Urol. 2015;25:183-184.
93. Oto A, Sethi I, Karczmar G, et al. MR imaging-guided focal laser ablation for prostate cancer: phase I trial. Radiology. 2013;267:932-940.
94. Lee T, Mendhiratta N, Sperling D, Lepor H. Focal laser ablation for localized prostate cancer: principles, clinical trials, and our initial experience. Rev Urol. 2014;16:55-66.
95. Lepor H, Llukani E, Sperling D, Futterer JJ. Complications, recovery, and early functional outcomes and oncologic control following in-bore focal laser ablation of prostate cancer [published online ahead of print 2015]. Eur Urol. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.04.029.
96. Valerio M, Stricker PD, Ahmed HU, et al. Initial assessment of safety and clinical feasibility of irreversible electroporation in the focal treatment of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2014;17:343-347.
97. Davalos RV, Bhonsle S, Neal RE 2nd. Implications and considerations of thermal effects when applying irreversible electroporation tissue ablation therapy. Prostate. 2015;75:1114-1118.