MRT der Prostata: Empfehlungen zur Vorbereitung und Durchführung

Tobias Franiel; Michael Quentin; Ullrich Gerd Mueller-Lisse; Lars Schimmoeller; Patrick Asbach; Stefan Rödel; Winfried Willinek; Katja Hueper; Dirk Beyersdorff; Matthias Röthke

doi:10.1055/s-0042-119451

RöFo - Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Röntgenstrahlen und der bildgebenden Verfahren, Table of Contents

Rofo 2017; 189(01): 21-28
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-119451

Guideline

MRT der Prostata: Empfehlungen zur Vorbereitung und Durchführung

Article in several languages: English | deutsch

Authors

Tobias Franiel

¹Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Jena, Germany
Michael Quentin

²Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Duesseldorf, Duesseldorf, Germany
Ullrich Gerd Mueller-Lisse

³Department of Radiology, University of Munich, München, Germany
Lars Schimmoeller

²Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Duesseldorf, Duesseldorf, Germany
Patrick Asbach

⁴Department of Radiology, Charité Campus Mitte, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany
Stefan Rödel

⁵Radiology, Städtisches Klinikum Dresden Friedrichstadt, Dresden, Germany
Winfried Willinek

⁶Radiology, University of Bonn, Germany
Katja Hueper

⁷Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
Dirk Beyersdorff

⁸Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
Matthias Röthke

⁹Radiology, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, Heidelberg, Germany

Abstract

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

Full Text

References

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
9 Guidelines E. 9.0 Contrast Media Guidelines. In. esur.org; 2016
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
18 Bruhn R. Schrading S. Kuhl CK. Abbreviated Prostate MRI. RSNA. Chicago, Illinois: 2015
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
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
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
22 Mueller-Lisse UG. Mueller-Lisse UL. Zamecnik P. et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI of the prostate. Radiologe 2011; 51: 205-214
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
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
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
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
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
28 Hylton N. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as an imaging biomarker. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 3293-3298
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
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
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
32 Barentsz JO. Richenberg J. Clements R. et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. European radiology 2012; 22: 746-757
33 Mueller-Lisse UG. Scherr MK. Proton MR spectroscopy of the prostate. Eur J Radiol 2007; 63: 351-360
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
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;
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
49 Bootsma AM. Laguna Pes MP. Geerlings SE. et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis in urologic procedures: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2008; 54: 1270-1286
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
51 Loeb S. Carter HB. Berndt SI. et al. Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol 2011; 186: 1830-1834