Korean Journal of Radiology

  • 제18권4호
  • /
  • Pages.597-606
  • /
  • 2017
  • /
  • 1229-6929(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-8330(eISSN)
대한영상의학회 (The Korean Society of Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Multiparametric MRI in the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer

  • Futterer, Jurgen J. (Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center)
  • 투고 : 2016.11.17
  • 심사 : 2017.02.20
  • 발행 : 2017.08.01
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men aged 50 years and older in developed countries and the third leading cause of cancer-related death in men. Multiparametric prostate MR imaging is currently the most accurate imaging modality to detect, localize, and stage prostate cancer. The role of multi-parametric MR imaging in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer are discussed. In addition, insights are provided in imaging techniques, protocol, and interpretation.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer 2010;127:2893-2917 https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.25516
  2. Stamey TA, Caldwell M, McNeal JE, Nolley R, Hemenez M, Downs J. The prostate specific antigen era in the United States is over for prostate cancer: what happened in the last 20 years? J Urol 2004;172(4 Pt 1):1297-1301 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000139993.51181.5d
  3. Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS, Parnes HL, et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2239-2246 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa031918
  4. Djavan B, Ravery V, Zlotta A, Dobronski P, Dobrovits M, Fakhari M, et al. Prospective evaluation of prostate cancer detected on biopsies 1, 2, 3 and 4: when should we stop? J Urol 2001;166:1679-1683 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65652-2
  5. Wang Y, Wang X, Yu J, Ouyang J, Shen W, Zhou Y, et al. Application of transrectal ultrasound-guided repeat needle biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in Chinese population: a retrospective study. J Res Med Sci 2016;21:79 https://doi.org/10.4103/1735-1995.189696
  6. Miyagawa T, Ishikawa S, Kimura T, Suetomi T, Tsutsumi M, Irie T, et al. Real-time virtual sonography for navigation during targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging data. Int J Urol 2010;17:855-860 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2010.02612.x
  7. Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Blondin D, Quentin M, Hiester A, Godehardt E, 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.008
  8. Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, Yakar D, Somford DM, Heijmink SW, et al. Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 2011;261:46-66 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11091822
  9. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22:746-757 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y
  10. Donati OF, Mazaheri Y, Afaq A, Vargas HA, Zheng J, Moskowitz CS, et al. Prostate cancer aggressiveness: assessment with whole-lesion histogram analysis of the apparent diffusion coefficient. Radiology 2014;271:143-152 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13130973
  11. Kobus T, Hambrock T, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Wright AJ, Barentsz JO, Heerschap A, et al. In vivo assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging at 3 T with an endorectal coil. Eur Urol 2011;60:1074-1080 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.03.002
  12. Peng Y, Jiang Y, Yang C, Brown JB, Antic T, Sethi I, et al. Quantitative analysis of multiparametric prostate MR images: differentiation between prostate cancer and normal tissue and correlation with Gleason score--a computer-aided diagnosis development study. Radiology 2013;267:787-796 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13121454
  13. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging-reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 2016;69:16-40 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052
  14. Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T, Goldman DA, Udo K, Touijer KA, et al. Normal central zone of the prostate and central zone involvement by prostate cancer: clinical and MR imaging implications. Radiology 2012;262:894-902 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11110663
  15. Ling D, Lee JK, Heiken JP, Balfe DM, Glazer HS, McClennan BL. Prostatic carcinoma and benign prostatic hyperplasia: inability of MR imaging to distinguish between the two diseases. Radiology 1986;158:103-107 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.158.1.2416005
  16. Akin O, Sala E, Moskowitz CS, Kuroiwa K, Ishill NM, Pucar D, et al. Transition zone prostate cancers: features, detection, localization, and staging at endorectal MR imaging. Radiology 2006;239:784-792 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2392050949
  17. desouza NM, Reinsberg SA, Scurr ED, Brewster JM, Payne GS. Magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: the value of apparent diffusion coefficients for identifying malignant nodules. Br J Radiol 2007;80:90-95 https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/24232319
  18. Padhani AR, Harvey CJ, Cosgrove DO. Angiogenesis imaging in the management of prostate cancer. Nat Clin Pract Urol 2005;2:596-607
  19. Collins DJ, Padhani AR. Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of tumor perfusion. Approaches and biomedical challenges. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 2004;23:65-83
  20. Epstein JI. Update on the Gleason grading system. Ann Pathol 2011;31(5 Suppl):S20-S26 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annpat.2011.08.023
  21. Babaian RJ, Troncoso P, Bhadkamkar VA, Johnston DA. Analysis of clinicopathologic factors predicting outcome after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2001;91:1414-1422 https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(20010415)91:8<1414::AID-CNCR1147>3.0.CO;2-G
  22. Zelefsky MJ, Kattan MW, Fearn P, Fearon BL, Stasi JP, Shippy AM, et al. Pretreatment nomogram predicting tenyear biochemical outcome of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Urology 2007;70:283-287
  23. Futterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P, Emberton M, Giannarini G, Kirkham A, et al. Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2015;68:1045-1053 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.013
  24. Chan TY, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Epstein JI. Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology 2000;56:823-827 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00753-6
  25. Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T, Mazaheri Y, Zheng J, Moskowitz C, et al. Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology 2011;259:775-784 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11102066
  26. Rosenkrantz AB, Sigmund EE, Johnson G, Babb JS, Mussi TC, Melamed J, 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 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12112290
  27. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, 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 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11091409
  28. Vos EK, Litjens GJ, Kobus T, Hambrock T, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Barentsz JO, et al. Assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T. Eur Urol 2013;64:448-455 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.045
  29. Oto A, Yang C, Kayhan A, Tretiakova M, Antic T, Schmid-Tannwald C, et al. Diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrastenhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation of quantitative MR parameters with Gleason score and tumor angiogenesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;197:1382-1390 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.6861
  30. Bae H, Yoshida S, Matsuoka Y, Nakajima H, Ito E, Tanaka H, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient value as a biomarker reflecting morphological and biological features of prostate cancer. Int Urol Nephrol 2014;46:555-561 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-013-0557-1
  31. Nagel KN, Schouten MG, Hambrock T, Litjens GJ, Hoeks CM, ten Haken B, et al. Differentiation of prostatitis and prostate cancer by using diffusion-weighted MR imaging and MRguided biopsy at 3 T. Radiology 2013;267:164-172 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12111683
  32. Zakian KL, Sircar K, Hricak H, Chen HN, Shukla-Dave A, Eberhardt S, et al. Correlation of proton MR spectroscopic imaging with gleason score based on step-section pathologic analysis after radical prostatectomy. Radiology 2005;234:804-814 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2343040363
  33. Wang L, Mazaheri Y, Zhang J, Ishill NM, Kuroiwa K, Hricak H. Assessment of biologic aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of MR signal intensity with Gleason grade after radical prostatectomy. Radiology 2008;246:168-176 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2461070057
  34. Lemaitre L, Puech P, Poncelet E, Bouye S, Leroy X, Biserte J, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of anterior prostate cancer: morphometric assessment and correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. Eur Radiol 2009;19:470-480 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1153-0
  35. Bratan F, Melodelima C, Souchon R, Hoang Dinh A, Mege-Lechevallier F, Crouzet S, et al. How accurate is multiparametric MR imaging in evaluation of prostate cancer volume? Radiology 2015;275:144-154 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14140524
  36. Lencioni R, Menchi I, Paolicchi A, Carini M, Amorosi A, Bartolozzi C. Prediction of pathological tumor volume in clinically localized prostate cancer: value of endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging. MAGMA 1997;5:117-121 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02592242
  37. Coakley FV, Kurhanewicz J, Lu Y, Jones KD, Swanson MG, Chang SD, et al. Prostate cancer tumor volume: measurement with endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 2002;223:91-97 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2231010575
  38. Le Nobin J, Orczyk C, Deng FM, Melamed J, Rusinek H, Taneja SS, et al. Prostate tumour volumes: evaluation of the agreement between magnetic resonance imaging and histology using novel co-registration software. BJU Int 2014;114(6b):E105-E112 https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12750
  39. Anwar M, Westphalen AC, Jung AJ, Noworolski SM, Simko JP, Kurhanewicz J, et al. Role of endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging in defining treatable intraprostatic tumor foci in prostate cancer: quantitative analysis of imaging contour compared to whole-mount histopathology. Radiother Oncol 2014;110:303-308 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2013.12.003
  40. Ouzzane A, Helfrich O, Le Nobin J, Puech P, Betrouni N, Villers A. Understanding the pathological implications of MRI: application to focal therapy planning. Curr Opin Urol 2015;25:198-204 https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000166
  41. Futterer JJ. MR imaging in local staging of prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol 2007;63:328-334 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.06.029
  42. Futterer JJ, Engelbrecht MR, Huisman HJ, Jager GJ, Hulsbergen-van De Kaa CA, Witjes JA, et al. Staging prostate cancer with dynamic contrast-enhanced endorectal MR imaging prior to radical prostatectomy: experienced versus less experienced readers. Radiology 2005;237:541-549 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2372041724
  43. Vargas HA, Hotker AM, Goldman DA, Moskowitz CS, Gondo T, Matsumoto K, 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 2016;26:1606-1612 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4015-6
  44. Lim CS, McInnes MD, Lim RS, Breau RH, Flood TA, Krishna S, et al. Prognostic value of Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System (PI-RADS) v. 2 assessment categories 4 and 5 compared to histopathological outcomes after radical prostatectomy. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016 Nov 3 [Epub ahead of print]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25539
  45. Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D, Froemming AT, Gupta RT, Turkbey B, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS version 2 lexicon: a multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology 2016;280:793-804 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016152542
  46. Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MG. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasoundguided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2015;68:438-450 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.037
  47. de Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Futterer JJ, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;202:343-351 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.11046
  48. Sharif-Afshar AR, Nguyen C, Feng TS, Payor L, Fan Z, Saouaf R, et al. Prospective pilot trial to evaluate a high resolution diffusion-weighted MRI in prostate cancer patients. EBioMedicine 2016;7:80-84 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.03.041
  49. Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Verma S, Thoeny HC, Tempany CM, Shtern F, et al. Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 guidelines for multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and recommendations for use. Eur Urol 2016;69:41-49 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.038

피인용 문헌

  1. Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Version 2: Beyond Prostate Cancer Detection vol.19, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.19.2.193
  2. Yield of Repeat Targeted Direct in-Bore Magnetic Resonance-Guided Prostate Biopsy (MRGB) of the Same Lesions in Men Having a Prior Negative Targeted MRGB vol.19, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.19.4.733
  3. Implementation of a 5-Minute Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening Protocol for Prostate Cancer in Men With Elevated Prostate-Specific Antigen Before Biopsy vol.53, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1097/rli.0000000000000427
  4. A Glimpse on Trends and Characteristics of Recent Articles Published in the Korean Journal of Radiology vol.20, pp.12, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2019.0928
  5. Abbreviated Biparametric Versus Standard Multiparametric MRI for Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis vol.212, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.18.20103
  6. Apport du 68Ga-PSMA-TEP dans la prise en charge initiale par radiothérapie des cancers de la prostate vol.43, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mednuc.2019.04.002
  7. A Deep Learning-Based Approach for the Detection and Localization of Prostate Cancer in T2 Magnetic Resonance Images vol.32, pp.5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-018-0160-1
  8. Histological characteristics of the largest and secondary tumors in radical prostatectomy specimens and implications for focal therapy vol.14, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13000-019-0782-8
  9. Characteristics of Recent Articles Published in the Korean Journal of Radiology Based on the Citation Frequency vol.21, pp.12, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2020.1322
  10. Evaluation of relationships between the final Gleason score, PI-RADS v2 score, ADC value, PSA level, and tumor diameter in patients that underwent radical prostatectomy due to prostate cancer vol.125, pp.9, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-020-01183-1
  11. Bayesian non-linear regression with spatial priors for noise reduction and error estimation in quantitative MRI with an application in T1 estimation vol.65, pp.22, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/abb9f5
  12. The Era of Radiogenomics in Precision Medicine: An Emerging Approach to Support Diagnosis, Treatment Decisions, and Prognostication in Oncology vol.10, pp.None, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.570465
  13. Assessment of Agreement between Two Difference Prostate-Specific Antigen Assay Modalities vol.10, pp.4, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10040297