Download PDF
Rofo 2017; 189(01): 21-28
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-119451
Guideline
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

MRT der Prostata: Empfehlungen zur Vorbereitung und Durchführung

Article in several languages: English | deutsch
Tobias Franiel
1   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Jena, Germany
,
Michael Quentin
2   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Duesseldorf, Duesseldorf, Germany
,
Ullrich Gerd Mueller-Lisse
3   Department of Radiology, University of Munich, München, Germany
,
Lars Schimmoeller
2   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Duesseldorf, Duesseldorf, Germany
,
Patrick Asbach
4   Department of Radiology, Charité Campus Mitte, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany
,
Stefan Rödel
5   Radiology, Städtisches Klinikum Dresden Friedrichstadt, Dresden, Germany
,
Winfried Willinek
6   Radiology, University of Bonn, Germany
,
Katja Hueper
7   Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
,
Dirk Beyersdorff
8   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
,
Matthias Röthke
9   Radiology, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, Heidelberg, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

14 April 2016

21 September 2016

Publication Date:
21 December 2016 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Die AG Uroradiologie und Urogenitaldiagnostik der Deutschen Röntgengesellschaft hat im Konsensusverfahren einheitliche Empfehlungen zur Vorbereitung und Durchführung der MRT der Prostata erarbeitet. In tabellarischer Form werden im ersten Teil detailliert Empfehlungen zu 1. Anamnestische Angaben vor einer MRT der Prostata, 2. Untersuchungsterminierung und -vorbereitung, 3. Untersuchungsprotokoll und 4. MRT gestützte In-bore-Biopsie gegeben. Im zweiten Teil werden die Empfehlungen ausführlich besprochen und die jeweiligen Hintergrundinformationen bereitgestellt.

Kernaussagen:

  • Zur Vereinheitlichung der MRT der Prostata wurden von der AG Uroradiologie und Urogenitaldiagnostik der Deutschen Röntgengesellschaft Empfehlungen erarbeitet.

  • Notwendige Angaben zu Anamnese, Empfehlungen zur Patientenvorbereitung, zum Untersuchungsprotokoll und zur MRT gestützten In-bore Biopsie werden detailliert formuliert und ausführlich begründet.

Zitierweise

  • Franiel T, Quentin M, Mueller-Lisse UG et al. MRI of the Prostate: Recommendations on Patient Preparation and Scanning Protocol. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2017; 189: 21 – 28

Key words

prostate - MRI - guideline
 

  • References

  • 1 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Urologie e.V. Interdisziplinäre Leitlinie der Qualität S3 zur Früherkennung, Diagnose und Therapie der verschiedenen Stadien des Prostatakarzinoms. Version 20 2011 www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/043-022OL.html
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 White S. Hricak H. Forstner R. et al. Prostate cancer: effect of postbiopsy hemorrhage on interpretation of MR images. Radiology 1995; 195: 385-390
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Mueller-Lisse UG. Vigneron DB. Hricak H. et al. Localized prostate cancer: effect of hormone deprivation therapy measured by using combined three-dimensional 1H MR spectroscopy and MR imaging: clinicopathologic case-controlled study. Radiology 2001; 221: 380-390
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Truong H. Logan J. Turkbey B. et al. MRI characterization of the dynamic effects of 5alpha-reductase inhibitors on prostate zonal volumes. Can J Urol 2013; 20: 7002-7007
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Beyersdorff D. Taupitz M. Deger S. et al. MRI of the prostate after combined radiotherapy (afterloading and percutaneous): histopathologic correlation. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2000; 172: 680-685
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Franiel T. Lüdemann L. Taupitz M. et al. MRI before and after external beam intensity-modulated radiotherapy of patients with prostate cancer: the feasibility of monitoring of radiation-induced tissue changes using a dynamic contrast-enhanced inversion-prepared dual-contrast gradient echo sequence. Radiother Oncol 2009; 93: 241-245
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Li BJ. Zhang C. Li K. et al. Clinical analysis of the characterization of magnetic resonance imaging in 102 cases of refractory haematospermia. Andrology 2013; 1: 948-956
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Franiel T. Lüdemann L. Rudolph B. et al. Evaluation of normal prostate tissue, chronic prostatitis, and prostate cancer by quantitative perfusion analysis using a dynamic contrast-enhanced inversion-prepared dual-contrast gradient echo sequence. Invest Radiol 2008; 43: 481-487
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Guidelines E. 9.0 Contrast Media Guidelines. In. esur.org; 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Roethke MC. Kuru TH. Radbruch A. et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging at 3 Tesla: Is administration of hyoscine-N-butyl-bromide mandatory?. World J Radiol 2013; 5: 259-263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Wagner M. Rief M. Busch J. et al. Effect of butylscopolamine on image quality in MRI of the prostate. Clin Radiol 2010; 65: 460-464
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Weinreb JC. Barentsz JO. Choyke PL. et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 16-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Quentin M. Blondin D. Arsov C. et al. Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging guided in-bore prostate biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in biopsy naive men with elevated prostate specific antigen. J Urol 2014; 192: 1374-1379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Radtke JP. Kuru TH. Boxler S. et al. Comparative analysis of transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy with magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion guidance. J Urol 2015; 193: 87-94
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 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. European radiology 2014; 24: 344-352
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Baur AD. Maxeiner A. Franiel T. et al. Evaluation of the prostate imaging reporting and data system for the detection of prostate cancer by the results of targeted biopsy of the prostate. Invest Radiol 2014; 49: 411-420
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Bruhn R. Schrading S. Kuhl CK. Abbreviated Prostate MRI. RSNA. Chicago, Illinois: 2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Rothke M. Blondin D. Schlemmer HP. et al. PI-RADS classification: structured reporting for MRI of the prostate. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2013; 185: 253-261
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Röthke MC. Lichy MP. Jurgschat L. et al. Tumorsize dependent detection rate of endorectal MRI of prostate cancer – a histopathologic correlation with whole-mount sections in 70 patients with prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol 2011; 79: 189-195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hadaschik BA. Kuru TH. Tulea C. et al. A novel stereotactic prostate biopsy system integrating pre-interventional magnetic resonance imaging and live ultrasound fusion. J Urol 2011; 186: 2214-2220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Mueller-Lisse UG. Mueller-Lisse UL. Zamecnik P. et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI of the prostate. Radiologe 2011; 51: 205-214
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Jie C. Rongbo L. Ping T. The value of diffusion-weighted imaging in the detection of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. European radiology 2014; 24: 1929-1941
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Zhang ZX. Yang J. Zhang CZ. et al. The value of magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of prostate cancer in patients with previous negative biopsies and elevated prostate-specific antigen levels: a meta-analysis. Acad Radiol 2014; 21: 578-589
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Wu LM. Xu JR. Ye YQ. et al. The clinical value of diffusion-weighted imaging in combination with T2-weighted imaging in diagnosing prostate carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Roentgenol 2012; 199: 103-110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Decker G. Murtz P. Gieseke J. et al. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy of the prostate: dynamic ADC monitoring by DWI at 3.0 T. Radiother Oncol 2014; 113: 115-120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Hylton N. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as an imaging biomarker. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 3293-3298
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Puech P. Sufana-Iancu A. Renard B. et al. Prostate MRI: can we do without DCE sequences in 2013?. Diagn Interv Imaging 2013; 94: 1299-1311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Rosenkrantz AB. Sabach A. Babb JS. et al. Prostate cancer: comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI techniques for localization of peripheral zone tumor. Am J Roentgenol 2013; 201: W471-W478
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Hegde JV. Mulkern RV. Panych LP. et al. Multiparametric MRI of prostate cancer: an update on state-of-the-art techniques and their performance in detecting and localizing prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013; 37: 1035-1054
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Barentsz JO. Richenberg J. Clements R. et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. European radiology 2012; 22: 746-757
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Mueller-Lisse UG. Scherr MK. Proton MR spectroscopy of the prostate. Eur J Radiol 2007; 63: 351-360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Umbehr M. Bachmann LM. Held U. et al. Combined magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2009; 55: 575-590
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 de Rooij M. Hamoen EH. Witjes JA. et al. Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Local Staging of Prostate Cancer: A Diagnostic Meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2015; DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.029.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Rosenkrantz AB. Neil J. Kong X. et al. Prostate cancer: Comparison of 3D T2-weighted with conventional 2D T2-weighted imaging for image quality and tumor detection. Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: 446-452
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Itatani R. Namimoto T. Takaoka H. et al. Extracapsular extension of prostate cancer: diagnostic value of combined multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and isovoxel 3-dimensional T2-weighted imaging at 1.5 T. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2015; 39: 37-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Rosenkrantz AB. Sigmund EE. Johnson G. et al. Prostate cancer: feasibility and preliminary experience of a diffusional kurtosis model for detection and assessment of aggressiveness of peripheral zone cancer. Radiology 2012; 264: 126-135
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Roethke MC. Kuder TA. Kuru TH. et al. Evaluation of Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging Versus Standard Diffusion Imaging for Detection and Grading of Peripheral Zone Prostate Cancer. Invest Radiol 2015; 50: 483-489
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Schimmoller L. Blondin D. Arsov C. et al. MRI-Guided In-Bore Biopsy: Differences Between Prostate Cancer Detection and Localization in Primary and Secondary Biopsy Settings. Am J Roentgenol 2016; 206: 92-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Oberlin DT. Casalino DD. Miller FH. et al. Diagnostic Value of Guided Biopsies: Fusion and Cognitive-registration Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Conventional Ultrasound Biopsy of the Prostate. Urology 2016; 92: 75-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Rastinehad AR. Durand M. A comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography (MRI/US)-fusion guided prostate biopsy devices: too many uncontrolled variables. BJU Int 2016; 117: 548-549
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Chee YL. Crawford JC. Watson HG. et al. Guidelines on the assessment of bleeding risk prior to surgery or invasive procedures. British Committee for Standards in Haematology. Br J Haematol 2008; 140: 496-504
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Burger W. Chemnitius JM. Kneissl GD. et al. Low-dose aspirin for secondary cardiovascular prevention – cardiovascular risks after its perioperative withdrawal versus bleeding risks with its continuation – review and meta-analysis. J Intern Med 2005; 257: 399-414
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Poldermans D. Bax JJ. Boersma E. et al. Guidelines for pre-operative cardiac risk assessment and perioperative cardiac management in non-cardiac surgery: the Task Force for Preoperative Cardiac Risk Assessment and Perioperative Cardiac Management in Non-cardiac Surgery of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and endorsed by the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA). Eur J Anaesthesiol 2010; 27: 92-137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Schlitt A. Jambor C. Spannagl M. et al. The perioperative management of treatment with anticoagulants and platelet aggregation inhibitors. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2013; 110: 525-532
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Bootsma AM. Laguna Pes MP. Geerlings SE. et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis in urologic procedures: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2008; 54: 1270-1286
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Aron M. Rajeev TP. Gupta NP. Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal needle biopsy of the prostate: a randomized controlled study. BJU Int 2000; 85: 682-685
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Loeb S. Carter HB. Berndt SI. et al. Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol 2011; 186: 1830-1834
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar