Dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging has limited added value over T2-weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging when using PI-RADSv2 for diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in patients with elevated PSA

Clinical Radiology

Volumn 72, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 23-32

  De Visschere, P ^a   Lumen, N ^a   Ost, P ^a   Decaestecker, K ^a   Pattyn, E ^a   Villeirs, G ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; CONTRAST MEDIUM; TUMOR MARKER;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER SIZE; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURGERY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; DYNAMIC CONTRAST-ENHANCED MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; FOLLOW UP; GLEASON SCORE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIMODALITY CANCER THERAPY; MULTIPARAMETRIC MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; BELGIUM; BLOOD; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EPIDEMIOLOGY; EVALUATION STUDY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATE TUMOR; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BELGIUM; BIOMARKERS, TUMOR; CONTRAST MEDIA; DIFFUSION MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84992345140     PISSN: 00099260     EISSN: 1365229X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.09.011     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. 1 Abd-Alazeez, M., Kirkham, A., Ahmed, H.U., et al. Performance of multiparametric MRI in men at risk of prostate cancer before the first biopsy: a paired validating cohort study using template prostate mapping biopsies as the reference standard. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 17:1 (2014), 40–46.
2. 2 Thompson, J.E., Moses, D., Shnier, R., et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging guided diagnostic biopsy detects significant prostate cancer and could reduce unnecessary biopsies and over detection: a prospective study. J Urol 192:1 (2014), 67–74.
3. 3 Renard-Penna, R., Roupret, M., Comperat, E., et al. Relationship between non-suspicious MRI and insignificant prostate cancer: results from a monocentric study. World J Urol, 2015.
4. 4 Kirkham, A.P., Emberton, M., Allen, C., How good is MRI at detecting and characterising cancer within the prostate?. Eur Urol 50:6 (2006), 1163–1174 discussion 1175.
5. 5 Abd-Alazeez, M., Ahmed, H.U., Arya, M., et al. The accuracy of multiparametric MRI in men with negative biopsy and elevated PSA level—can it rule out clinically significant prostate cancer?. Urol Oncol, 32(1), 2014 45 e17–22.
6. 6 Mozer, P., Roupret, M., Le Cossec, C., et al. First round of targeted biopsies using magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion compared with conventional transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsies for the diagnosis of localised prostate cancer. BJU Int 115:1 (2015), 50–57.
7. 7 Arumainayagam, N., Ahmed, H.U., Moore, C.M., et al. Multiparametric MR imaging for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: a validation cohort study with transperineal template prostate mapping as the reference standard. Radiology 268:3 (2013), 761–769.
8. 8 De Visschere, P.J., Briganti, A., Futterer, J.J., et al. Role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in early detection of prostate cancer. Insights Imaging, 2016.
9. 9 Barentsz, J.O., Richenberg, J., Clements, R., et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22:4 (2012), 746–757.
10. 10 Weinreb, J.C., Barentsz, J.O., Choyke, P.L., et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 69:1 (2016), 16–40.
11. 11 Barentsz, J.O., Weinreb, J.C., Verma, S., et al. Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 guidelines for multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and recommendations for use. Eur Urol 69:1 (2016), 41–49.
12. 12 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 257:3 (2010), 715–723.
13. 13 Delongchamps, N.B., Rouanne, M., Flam, T., et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the detection and localisation of prostate cancer: combination of T2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted imaging. BJU Int 107:9 (2011), 1411–1418.
14. 14 Rosenkrantz, A.B., Kim, S., Lim, R.P., et al. Prostate cancer localisation using multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and Likert scales. Radiology 269:2 (2013), 482–492.
15. 15 Barentsz, J.O., Choyke, P.L., Cornud, F., et al. Reply to Erik Rud and Eduard Baco's Letter to the Editor re: Re: Jeffrey C. Weinreb, Jelle O. Barentsz, Peter L. Choyke, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 2016;69:16–40. Eur Urol, 2016 Apr 26, 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.04.016 pii: S0302-2838(16)30075-6. [Epub ahead of print].
16. 16 Rud, E., Baco, E., Re: Jeffrey C. Weinreb, Jelle O. Barentsz, Peter L. Choyke, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 2016;69:16–40: Is Contrast-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging Really Necessary When Searching for Prostate Cancer?. Eur Urol, 2016 Apr 25, 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.04.017 pii: S0302-2838(16)30076-8. [Epub ahead of print].
17. 17 Beomonte Zobel, B., Quattrocchi, C.C., Errante, Y., et al. Gadolinium-based contrast agents: did we miss something in the last 25 years?. Radiol Med, 2015.
18. 18 Vargas, H.A., Hotker, A.M., Goldman, D.A., et al. Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference. Eur Radiol 26:6 (2016 Jun), 1606–1612, 10.1007/s00330-015-4015-6 Epub 2015 Sep 22.
19. 19 Richenberg, J.L., PI-RADS: past, present and future. Clin Radiol 71:1 (2016), 23–24.
20. 20 de Rooij, M., Hamoen, E.H., Futterer, J.J., et al. Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:2 (2014), 343–351.
21. 21 Roethke, M.C., Kuru, T.H., 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 24:2 (2014), 344–352.
22. 22 Weinreb, J.C., Blume, J.D., Coakley, F.V., et al. Prostate cancer: sextant localization at MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging before prostatectomy—results of ACRIN prospective multi-institutional clinicopathologic study. Radiology 251:1 (2009), 122–133.
23. 23 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 265:2 (2012), 478–487.
24. 24 Tan, C.H., Hobbs, B.P., Wei, W., et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for the detection of prostate cancer: meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:4 (2015), W439–W448.
25. 25 Haghighi, M., Shah, S., Taneja, S.S., et al. Prostate cancer: diffusion-weighted imaging versus dynamic-contrast enhanced imaging for tumor localization-a meta-analysis. J Comput Assist Tomogr 37:6 (2013), 980–988.
26. 26 Kumar, V., Jagannathan, N.R., Thulkar, S., et al. Prebiopsy magnetic resonance spectroscopy and imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Int J Urol 19:7 (2012), 602–613.
27. 27 Villeirs, G.M., Oosterlinck, W., Vanherreweghe, E., et al. A qualitative approach to combined magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol 73:2 (2010), 352–356.
28. 28 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 62:6 (2012), 986–996.
29. 29 Kuru, T.H., Roethke, M.C., Rieker, P., et al. Histology core-specific evaluation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) standardised scoring system of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate. BJU Int 112:8 (2013), 1080–1087.
30. 30 Schimmoller, 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 23:11 (2013), 3185–3190.
31. 31 Hamoen, E.H., de Rooij, M., Witjes, J.A., et al. Use of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) for prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 67:6 (2015), 1112–1121.
32. 32 Junker, D., Schafer, G., Edlinger, M., et al. Evaluation of the PI-RADS scoring system for classifying mpMRI findings in men with suspicion of prostate cancer. BioMed Res Int, 2013, 2013, 252939.
33. 33 Rabbani, F., Stroumbakis, N., Kava, B.R., et al. Incidence and clinical significance of false-negative sextant prostate biopsies. J Urol 159:4 (1998), 1247–1250.
34. 34 Hoeks, C.M., Schouten, M.G., Bomers, J.G., 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 62:5 (2012), 902–909.