Prostate imaging may not be necessary in nonpalpable carcinoma of the prostate

3-T MRI with phased-array coil in local staging of prostatic cancer

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a 3-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system with a phased-array coil (3T MRI) in the local staging of prostatic cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between July 2004 and September 2007, 59 patients (mean age 66 years) with a histologic diagnosis of prostatic cancer underwent 3-T MRI with a phased-array coil. A total of 42/59 patients underwent a radical prostatectomy within 3 weeks of the MRI examination. Two radiologists with differing experience in the interpretation of prostatic imaging used a 1-5 scale score to assess extracapsular spread, seminal vesicle and neurovascular bundle infiltration, and prostatic apex involvement. The anatomopathologic examination conducted on histologic macrosections was the reference test used to evaluate the results of 3-T MRI. Interobserver reliability was assessed using the k value.

RESULTS

The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy values obtained by the expert radiologist were 68%, 92%, and 83%, respectively, compared to 50%, 85%, and 71% for the identification of extracapsular spread and 81%, 62%, and 84% compared to 63%, 50%, and 55% for apex involvement. Interobserver reliability was good (k=0.71). Seminal vesicle infiltration was correctly identified in four of five cases and neurovascular bundle infiltration was identified in four of four cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite presenting diagnostic accuracy values lower than those reported in literature using 1.5-T endorectal coil MRI, the use of 3-T MRI with a phased-array coil could constitute a valid alternative to MRI techniques using endorectal coils in selected patients. Direct comparative studies between the two methods on large caseloads are required to confirm this hypothesis.

Update of prostate magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T

More recently, 3-T magnetic resonance (MR) scanner become more clinically available, and clinical application of 3-T MR imaging (MRI) of the abdomen and pelvis is now feasible and being performed at many institutions. However, few prostrate 3-T MRI studies have been published. The increase in signal-to-noise ratio at 3 versus 1.5 T clearly improves spatiotemporal and spectral resolutions of the prostate. Thus, we asked whether 3-T MRI improves the localization and staging of prostate cancer versus 1.5-T MRI. To answer this question, this article reviews the current limitations of prostate 1.5-T MRI and addresses its pros and cons. Moreover, we present preliminary results of prostate 3-T MRI and introduce our experience for prostate 3-T MRI using a phased-array coil, with an emphasis on imaging sequences, for example, T2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced, diffusion-weighted, and MR spectroscopic imaging.

Prostate MR imaging at high-field strength: evolution or revolution?

As 3 T MR scanners become more available, body imaging at high field strength is becoming the subject of intensive research. However, little has been published on prostate imaging at 3 T. Will high-field imaging dramatically increase our ability to depict and stage prostate cancer? This paper will address this question by reviewing the advantages and drawbacks of body imaging at 3 T and the current limitations of prostate imaging at 1.5 T, and by detailing the preliminary results of prostate 3 T MRI. Even if slight adjustments of imaging protocols are necessary for taking into account the changes in T1 and T2 relaxation times at 3 T, tissue contrast in T2-weighted (T2w) imaging seems similar at 1.5 T and 3 T. Therefore, significant improvement in cancer depiction in T2w imaging is not expected. However, increased spatial resolution due to increased signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) may improve the detection of minimal capsular invasion. Higher field strength should provide increased spectral and spatial resolution for spectroscopic imaging, but new pulse sequences will have to be designed for overcoming field inhomogeneities and citrate J-modulation issues. Finally, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI is the method of imaging that is the most likely to benefit from the increased SNR, with a significantly better trade-off between temporal and spatial resolution.

Do impalpable stage T1c prostate cancers visible on ultrasound differ from those not visible?

PURPOSE

We assessed whether the appearance of cancer within the prostate on sonography is associated with different pathological features and/or prognoses compared with nonvisible impalpable cancers defined as stage T1c by the TNM staging system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed the clinical and pathological features, and progression rate in 323 patients with clinical stage T1cNX M0 cancer treated with radical prostatectomy between 1983 and 1998. Mean followup was 46.8 months (range 1 to 186).

RESULTS

Of 323 impalpable stage T1c cancers 170 (53%) were visible and the remainder was not visible on ultrasound. There were no significant differences in clinical or pathological features of the cancers in these 2 groups. The prostate specific antigen nonprogression rate at 5 years was also similar for patients with impalpable cancer regardless of whether the lesion was or was not revealed by ultrasound (mean +/- SE 87% +/- 6% and 91% +/- 6%, respectively, p = 0.3767). Of the 170 visible cancers 55 patients had a hypoechoic lesion considered highly suspicious for cancer. These cancers were higher grade, more extensive, less likely to be confined to the prostate and the prognosis was significantly worse than that of impalpable cancer whether or not they were visible at a less suspicious level (IV or less, p = 0.011). However, such highly suspicious visible cancers are rarely visualized today. Initial serum prostate specific antigen more accurately predicts the pathological stage of impalpable cancer than transrectal ultrasound results.

CONCLUSIONS

Impalpable cancers currently detected have similar pathological features and prognoses whether or not they are visible by ultrasound. Therefore, it is reasonable to categorize impalpable cancers as stage T1c and analyze the response to treatment regardless of the results of ultrasound.

The role of serial transrectal ultrasonography in a ‘watchful waiting’ protocol for men with localized prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To determine the value of serial 6-monthly transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) in a cohort of men with localized prostate cancer who consented to a programme of watchful waiting with selective delayed intervention.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Since November 1995, 180 men were accrued into an ongoing prospective study of watchful waiting with selective delayed intervention; 174 patients enrolled before 31 December 1999 comprised the cohort for the present study. The prospectively collected clinical data, including the TRUS reports, were reviewed systematically. Twenty-eight men met the arbitrarily predefined criteria of disease progression and required definitive treatment. The TRUS findings were scored as being consistent with the clinical scenario (i.e. clinical, biochemical or histological progression) if they reported a new or enlarging hypoechoic peripheral zone lesion, or a > or = 30% increase in overall prostate volume at the time of progression. In 136 men who had undergone two or more serial TRUS examinations the relationships between the rate of change of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and changes in both gland volume and the number of hypoechoic lesions were also examined.

RESULTS

The group of 28 men who progressed to require radical intervention underwent 83 TRUS examinations (median number per patient, three). Two men underwent TRUS only once at baseline because of progression within 6 months. Of these 28 men, only seven had changes on TRUS that were regarded as being consistent with progression; all seven consisted of the growth of an existing nodule or the appearance of a new nodule. In only one case was this accompanied by an increase of > or = 30% in gland volume. In the 136 men who underwent two or more serial TRUS examinations (median three, maximum nine), there was no correlation between the rate of change of PSA and changes in either gland volume or the number of peripheral zone hypoechoic lesions.

CONCLUSION

The use of serial TRUS in men with known but untreated prostate cancer is of limited value as a determinant of disease progression.

The role of imaging studies and molecular markers for selecting candidates for radical prostatectomy

For the typical patient who has newly diagnosed prostate cancer, clinically organ-confined disease of moderate grade, and a PSA less than 10 ng/mL, the current role of imaging studies and molecular biomarkers is limited. Bone scans are not necessary for newly diagnosed men with a PSA less than 10 ng/mL in the absence of bone pain. Similarly, abdominal and pelvic CT scanning rarely provides any useful diagnostic or staging information when the PSA is less the 20 ng/mL and is indicated rarely. Endorectal coil MR imaging adds staging information for patients with a PSA between 10 and 20 ng/mL, a Gleason score of 7 or less, and 50% or more positive biopsies on a sextant sampling. Indium 111 capromab pendetide scanning (ProstaScint) is FDA-approved to evaluate newly diagnosed patients at high risk for metastases. These patients have a Gleason score of 7 or greater and a PSA greater than 20 ng/mL, a Gleason score of 8 to 10 regardless of the PSA value, or clinical stage T3 disease and a Gleason score of 6 or greater. RT-PCR testing of blood or bone marrow for prostate-specific or prostate cancer-specific gene expression, or "molecular staging," is a promising technique whose current use is still investigational. Much useful information may be gained by careful study of prostate needle biopsy material. Aside from current Gleason grading and the number or percentage of cores involved with cancer, no molecular biomarker is approved for clinical use. p27, p53, bcl-2, Ki-67 (MIB-1), and the assessment of neovascularity hold promise, but prospective multicenter studies are needed. In the long-term, multiple gene expression profiling of biopsy material using gene chips may revolutionize the care of patients with prostate cancer and those who elect radical prostatectomy.

Relationship of ultrasound staging and bilateral biopsy positivity to outcome in stage T1c prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy

OBJECTIVES

The strict definition of Stage T1c prostate cancer is that the tumor is not palpable on digital rectal examination (DRE) or seen on imaging studies such as ultrasound. The inclusion of ultrasound imaging was brought about without an understanding of the relationship between ultrasound upstaging and prognosis. We have also noticed that in clinical practice, treatment decisions are made on the basis of the finding of bilateral versus unilateral biopsy positivity. The objectives in this study were to determine the prognostic significance of upstaging by transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) to uT2 or uT3, and unilateral versus bilateral biopsy positivity in patients with Stage T1c cancer as determined by DRE (DRE-Stage T1c patients).

METHODS

Between 1987 and 1995 there were 643 patients with DRE-Stage T1-T2 prostate cancer treated with external beam radiotherapy; 24 had T1a, 76 had T1b, 183 had T1c, 133 had T2a, 168 had T2b, and 59 had T2c. Of these, 135 DRE-Stage T1c patients underwent ultrasound staging and 122 underwent bilateral prostate biopsies. All had pretreatment prostate-specific antigen values (PSAs) available and no patient received adjuvant androgen ablation. The median pretreatment PSA was 9.1 ng/mL, median radiotherapy dose was 66.0 Gy, and median follow-up was 41 months. Post-treatment failure was defined as disease recurrence and/or two elevations in PSA on consecutive follow-up visits.

RESULTS

The 5-year freedom from failure rate for DRE-Stage T1c patients (71%) was not significantly different from that of DRE-Stage T1b (65%) or DRE-Stage T2a (71%) patients. There was a trend (P = 0.1) toward a worse outcome for DRE-Stage T2b/T2c patients compared with DRE-Stage T1b/T1c/T2a patients. The distribution of DRE-Stage T1c patients by ultrasound staging was 29 with uT1c, 88 with uT2, and 18 with uT3 findings. Twenty percent of patients had bilateral positive biopsy specimens. In univariate and multivariate analyses, the only correlates of patient outcome were pretreatment PSA (P < or = 0.002) and isocenter dose (P = 0.03). TRUS upstaging had no effect on freedom from failure; uT1c patients had about the same risk of relapse or a rising PSA as uT2 or uT3 patients. Patients with bilateral positive prostate biopsy specimens had about the same prognosis as those with unilateral positive biopsy specimens.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with DRE-Stage T1c prostate cancer, the data indicate that ultrasound staging and bilateral biopsy positivity are not predictive of outcome for patients treated with external beam radiotherapy and treatment decisions should not be based on these parameters.