Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Prostate Cancer

Abstract

Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy in men, but only about 10 % of patients die from that cancer. Recent studies suggest that not all patients benefit from a radical therapeutic approach. When prostate cancer is suspected, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can make an important contribution to cancer localization within the prostate. Many studies show that T2-weighted morphologic imaging should be supplemented by multiparametric MRI techniques including diffusion-weighted imaging, contrast-enhanced sequences, and MR spectroscopy. This approach detects aggressive prostate cancer with high sensitivity and specificity. The findings of multiparametric MRI additionally contribute information to the assessment of cancer aggressiveness. The use of these multiparametric MRI techniques will gain an increasing role in the clinical management of prostate cancer patients. They can help in establishing a definitive diagnosis with a minimum of invasiveness and may also contribute to optimal individualized treatment. This review article presents the different techniques of multiparametric MRI and discusses their contribution to the detection of prostate cancer. Moreover, this review outlines an objective approach to image interpretation and structured reporting of MRI findings using the PI-RADS criteria. The review concludes with an outline of approaches to prostate biopsy on the basis of MRI (transrectal ultrasound, direct MRI guidance of tissue sampling, and MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy) and emerging future uses of MRI in the planning of focal treatment options and in the active surveillance of patients diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Citation Format:

• Durmus T, Baur A, Hamm B. Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Prostate Cancer. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2014; 186: 238 – 246

Zusammenfassung

Das Prostatakarzinom ist der häufigste bösartige Tumor des Mannes; allerdings versterben nur ca. 10 % der Patienten am Prostatakarzinom. Studien der letzten Jahre legen nahe, dass nicht jeder Patient von einer radikalen Therapie profitiert. Bei Verdacht auf Prostatakarzinom kann die MRT einen wichtigen Beitrag zur Tumordetektion leisten. Eine Vielzahl von Studien konnte zeigen, dass T2-gewichtete morphologische Bildgebung im Sinne einer multiparametrischen MRT durch diffusionsgewichtete, kontrastmittelgestützte und MR-spektroskopische Bildgebung ergänzt werden sollte. Insbesondere aggressive Karzinome können mit hoher Sensitivität und Spezifität entdeckt werden. Die multiparametriche MRT kann darüber hinaus einen Beitrag zur Aggressivitätsbeurteilung leisten. Die Anwendung dieser Techniken wird in den nächsten Jahren im Management von Patienten mit Prostatakarzinom eine zunehmende Bedeutung erlangen. Sie werden nicht nur dabei helfen, auf möglichst wenig invasive Art die endgültige Diagnose zu sichern, sondern möglicherweise auch die Wahl der für den individuellen Patienten optimal geeigneten Therapieoption beeinflussen. In der vorliegenden Arbeit werden die verschiedenen Techniken der multiparametrischen MRT sowie ihre Bedeutung hinsichtlich der Tumordetektion vorgestellt. Es werden die Objektivierung der Bildinterpretation, die strukturierte Befundung anhand der PI-RADS Kriterien sowie die Verfahren zur bioptischen Befundsicherung auf Basis der MRT (transrektaler Ultraschall, direkte MR-geführte Biopsie und MRT-Ultraschall-Fusionsbiopsie) beleuchtet. Abschließend wird auf mögliche zukünftige Indikationen der MRT hinsichtlich der Planung fokaler Therapien und der aktiven Überwachung von Patienten mit gesichertem Prostatakarzinom eingegangen.

Key words

prostate - MR imaging - imaging sequences - neoplasms

• References

• 1 Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2012; 62: 10-29 DOI: 10.3322/caac.20138.
• 2 Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 203-213 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1113162.
• 3 Zelefsky MJ, Chan H, Hunt M et al. Long-term outcome of high dose intensity modulated radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2006; 176: 1415-1419 DOI: S0022-5347(06)01371-1 [pii] 10.1016/j.juro.2006.06.002.
• 4 Padhani AR. Integrating multiparametric prostate MRI into clinical practice. Cancer Imaging 2011; 11: S27-S37 DOI: 10.1102/1470-7330.2011.9007.
• 5 Beyersdorff D, Darsow U, Stephan C et al. MRI of prostate cancer using three different coil systems: image quality, tumor detection, and staging. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2003; 175: 799-805 DOI: 10.1055/s-2003-39929.
• 6 Nakashima J, Tanimoto A, Imai Y et al. Endorectal MRI for prediction of tumor site, tumor size, and local extension of prostate cancer. Urology 2004; 64: 101-105 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2004.02.036 S0090429504003231 [pii].
• 7 Beyersdorff D, Taupitz M, Winkelmann B et al. Patients with a history of elevated prostate-specific antigen levels and negative transrectal US-guided quadrant or sextant biopsy results: value of MR imaging. Radiology 2002; 224: 701-706
• 8 Barrett T, Vargas HA, 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: 751-757 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12112100.
• 9 Rosenkrantz AB, Kopec M, Kong X et al. Prostate cancer vs. post-biopsy hemorrhage: diagnosis with T2- and diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010; 31: 1387-1394 DOI: 10.1002/jmri.22172.
• 10 Kaji Y, Kurhanewicz J, Hricak H 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 DOI: 10.1148/radiology.206.3.9494502.
• 11 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: 162-172 DOI: radiol.10101251 [pii] 10.1148/radiol.10101251.
• 12 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 DOI: 255/1/89 [pii] 10.1148/radiol.09090475.
• 13 Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 746-757 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y.
• 14 Turkbey B, Aras O, Karabulut N et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI for detecting and monitoring cancer: a review of current applications in body imaging. Diagn Interv Radiol 2012; 18: 46-59 DOI: 10.4261/1305-3825.DIR.4708-11.2.
• 15 Yagci AB, Ozari N, Aybek Z et al. The value of diffusion-weighted MRI for prostate cancer detection and localization. Diagn Interv Radiol 2011; 17: 130-134 DOI: 10.4261/1305-3825.DIR.3399-10.1.
• 16 Haider MA, van der Kwast TH, Tanguay J et al. Combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI for localization of prostate cancer. Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189: 323-328 DOI: 189/2/323 [pii] 10.2214/Am J Roentgenol.07.2211.
• 17 Kim CK, Park BK, Lee HM et al. Value of diffusion-weighted imaging for the prediction of prostate cancer location at 3T using a phased-array coil: preliminary results. Invest Radiol 2007; 42: 842-847 DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181461d21 00004424-200712000-00007 [pii].
• 18 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. Am J Roentgenol 2011; 197: 1382-1390 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.11.6861.
• 19 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: 488-495 DOI: radiol.10100667 [pii] 10.1148/radiol.10100667.
• 20 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 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11091409.
• 21 Turkbey B, Bernardo M, Merino MJ et al. MRI of localized prostate cancer: coming of age in the PSA era. Diagn Interv Radiol 2012; 18: 34-45 DOI: 10.4261/1305-3825.DIR.4478-11.1.
• 22 Durmus T, Vollnberg B, Schwenke C et al. Dynamic Contrast Enhanced MRI of the Prostate: Comparison of Gadobutrol and Gd-DTPA. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2013; 185: 862-868 DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1335892.
• 23 Franiel T, Hamm B, Hricak H. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and pharmacokinetic models in prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 2011; 21: 616-626 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-010-2037-7.
• 24 Ocak I, Bernardo M, Metzger G et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer at 3 T: a study of pharmacokinetic parameters. Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189: 849 DOI: 189/4/849 [pii] 10.2214/Am J Roentgenol.06.1329.
• 25 Kozlowski P, Chang SD, Jones EC et al. Combined diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis – correlation with biopsy and histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006; 24: 108-113 DOI: 10.1002/jmri.20626.
• 26 Noworolski SM, Vigneron DB, Chen AP et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and MR diffusion imaging to distinguish between glandular and stromal prostatic tissues. Magn Reson Imaging 2008; 26: 1071-1080 DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2008.01.033 S0730-725X(08)00057-X [pii].
• 27 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 DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09808.x.
• 28 Bloch BN, Furman-Haran E, Helbich TH et al. Prostate cancer: accurate determination of extracapsular extension with high-spatial-resolution dynamic contrast-enhanced and T2-weighted MR imaging – initial results. Radiology 2007; 245: 176-185 DOI: 2451061502 [pii] 10.1148/radiol.2451061502.
• 29 Cirillo S, Petracchini M, Scotti L et al. Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 Tesla to assess local recurrence following radical prostatectomy using T2-weighted and contrast-enhanced imaging. Eur Radiol 2009; 19: 761-769 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-008-1174-8.
• 30 Scheenen TW, Futterer J, Weiland E et al. Discriminating cancer from noncancer tissue in the prostate by 3-dimensional proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging: a prospective multicenter validation study. Invest Radiol 2011; 46: 25-33
• 31 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 DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.07.013 S0022-5347(11)04362-X [pii].
• 32 Coakley FV, Kurhanewicz J, Lu Y et al. Prostate cancer tumor volume: measurement with endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 2002; 223: 91-97
• 33 Rothke M, Blondin D, Schlemmer HP et al. PI-RADS-Klassifikation: Strukturiertes Befundungsschema fur die MRT der Prostata. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2013; 185: 253-261 DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1330270.
• 34 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: 986-996 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.06.044 S0302-2838(12)00757-9 [pii].
• 35 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 2013; DOI: 10.1007/s00330-013-2922-y.
• 36 Rosenkrantz AB, Kim S, Lim RP et al. Prostate Cancer Localization Using Multiparametric MR Imaging: Comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and Likert Scales. Radiology 2013; DOI: radiol.13122233 [pii] 10.1148/radiol.13122233.
• 37 Quentin M, Schimmoller L, Arsov C et al. 3-T in-bore MR-guided prostate biopsy based on a scoring system for target lesions characterization. Acta Radiol 2013; DOI: 0284185113492972 [pii] 10.1177/0284185113492972.
• 38 de la Taille A, Antiphon P, Salomon L et al. Prospective evaluation of a 21-sample needle biopsy procedure designed to improve the prostate cancer detection rate. Urology 2003; 61: 1181-1186 DOI: S0090429503001080 [pii].
• 39 Eskicorapci SY, Baydar DE, Akbal C et al. An extended 10-core transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsy protocol improves the detection of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2004; 45: 444-448 ; discussion 448-449 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2003.11.024 S0302283803006353 [pii].
• 40 Wefer AE, Hricak H, Vigneron DB et al. Sextant localization of prostate cancer: comparison of sextant biopsy, magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging with step section histology. J Urol 2000; 164: 400-404 DOI: S0022-5347(05)67370-3 [pii].
• 41 Durmus T, Reichelt U, Huppertz A et al. MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate: correlation between the cancer detection rate and the number of previous negative TRUS biopsies. Diagn Interv Radiol 2013; 19: 411-417 DOI: 10.5152/dir.2013.13055.
• 42 Bodelle B, Naguib NN, Schulz B et al. 1.5-T magnetic resonance-guided transgluteal biopsies of the prostate in patients with clinically suspected prostate cancer: technique and feasibility. Invest Radiol 2013; 48: 458-463 DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e31827c394b.
• 43 Wolter K, Decker G, Willinek WA. Transperineal MR-guided stereotactic prostate biopsy utilizing a commercially available anorectal biopsy device. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2013; 185: 116-120 DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1330549.
• 44 Beyersdorff D, Winkel A, Hamm B et al. MR imaging-guided prostate biopsy with a closed MR unit at 1.5 T: initial results. Radiology 2005; 234: 576-581 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2342031887.
• 45 Hambrock T, Somford DM, Hoeks C et al. Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. J Urol 2010; 183: 520-527 DOI: S0022-5347(09)02657-3 [pii] 10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.022.
• 46 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: 902-909 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.047 S0302-2838(12)00123-6 [pii].
• 47 Roethke M, Anastasiadis AG, Lichy M et al. MRI-guided 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 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-011-0675-2.
• 48 Puech P, Rouviere O, Renard-Penna R et al. Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy – prospective multicenter study. Radiology 2013; 268: 461-469 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13121501 radiol.13121501 [pii].
• 49 Durmus T, Stephan C, Grigoryev M et al. Detection of prostate cancer by real-time MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy: 3T MRI and state of the art sonography. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2013; 185: 428-433 DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1330704.
• 50 Sonn GA, Chang E, Natarajan S et al. Value of Targeted Prostate Biopsy Using Magnetic Resonance-Ultrasound Fusion in Men with Prior Negative Biopsy and Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen. Eur Urol 2013; DOI: S0302-2838(13)00249-2 [pii] 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.025.
• 51 Walton-Diaz A, Hoang AN, Turkbey B et al. Can MR-US Fusion Biopsy Improve Cancer Detection in Enlarged Prostates?. J Urol 2013; DOI: S0022-5347(13)04619-3 [pii] 10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.118.
• 52 Lees K, Durve M, Parker C. Active surveillance in prostate cancer. Current Opinion in Urology 2012; 22: 210-215 DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e328351dc47.
• 53 Wise AM, Stamey TA, McNeal JE et al. Morphologic and clinical significance of multifocal prostate cancers in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 2002; 60: 264-269 DOI: S0090429502017284 [pii].
• 54 de la Rosette J, Ahmed H, Barentsz J et al. Focal therapy in prostate cancer-report from a consensus panel. Journal of endourology/Endourological Society 2010; 24: 775-780 DOI: 10.1089/end.2009.0596.
• 55 Bomers JG, Sedelaar JP, Barentsz JO et al. MRI-guided interventions for the treatment of prostate cancer. Am J Roentgenol 2012; 199: 714-720 DOI: 199/4/714 [pii] 10.2214/Am J Roentgenol.12.8725.
• 56 van den Bos W, Muller BG, de la Rosette JJ. A randomized controlled trial on focal therapy for localized prostate carcinoma: hemiablation versus complete ablation with irreversible electroporation. Journal of endourology/Endourological Society 2013; 27: 262-264 DOI: 10.1089/end.2013.1568.