Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging as a predictor of biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer

Pathological and 3 Tesla Volumetric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Predictors of Biochemical Recurrence after Robotic Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Correlation with Whole Mount Histopathology

PURPOSE

We sought to identify the clinical and magnetic resonance imaging variables predictive of biochemical recurrence after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy in patients who underwent multiparametric 3 Tesla prostate magnetic resonance imaging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed an institutional review board approved, HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) compliant, single arm observational study of 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging prior to robotic assisted radical prostatectomy from December 2009 to March 2016. Clinical, magnetic resonance imaging and pathological information, and clinical outcomes were compiled. Biochemical recurrence was defined as prostate specific antigen 0.2 ng/cc or greater. Univariate and multivariate regression analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Biochemical recurrence had developed in 62 of the 255 men (24.3%) included in the study at a median followup of 23.5 months. Compared to the subcohort without biochemical recurrence the subcohort with biochemical recurrence had a greater proportion of patients with a high grade biopsy Gleason score, higher preoperative prostate specific antigen (7.4 vs 5.6 ng/ml), intermediate and high D'Amico classifications, larger tumor volume on magnetic resonance imaging (0.66 vs 0.30 ml), higher PI-RADS® (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System) version 2 category lesions, a greater proportion of intermediate and high grade radical prostatectomy Gleason score lesions, higher pathological T3 stage (all p <0.01) and a higher positive surgical margin rate (19.3% vs 7.8%, p = 0.016). On multivariable analysis only tumor volume on magnetic resonance imaging (adjusted OR 1.57, p = 0.016), pathological T stage (adjusted OR 2.26, p = 0.02), positive surgical margin (adjusted OR 5.0, p = 0.004) and radical prostatectomy Gleason score (adjusted OR 2.29, p = 0.004) predicted biochemical recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort tumor volume on magnetic resonance imaging and pathological variables, including Gleason score, staging and positive surgical margins, significantly predicted biochemical recurrence. This suggests an important new imaging biomarker.

Preoperative Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Predicts Biochemical Recurrence in Prostate Cancer after Radical Prostatectomy

Objectives

To evaluate the utility of preoperative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) in predicting biochemical recurrence (BCR) following radical prostatectomy (RP).

Materials/Methods

From March 2007 to January 2015, 421 consecutive patients with prostate cancer (PCa) underwent preoperative MP-MRI and RP. BCR-free survival rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify clinical and imaging variables predictive of BCR. Logistic regression was performed to generate a nomogram to predict three-year BCR probability.

Results

Of the total cohort, 370 patients met inclusion criteria with 39 (10.5%) patients experiencing BCR. On multivariate analysis, preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (p = 0.01), biopsy Gleason score (p = 0.0008), MP-MRI suspicion score (p = 0.03), and extracapsular extension on MP-MRI (p = 0.03) were significantly associated with time to BCR. A nomogram integrating these factors to predict BCR at three years after RP demonstrated a c-index of 0.84, outperforming the predictive value of Gleason score and PSA alone (c-index 0.74, p = 0.02).

Conclusion

The addition of MP-MRI to standard clinical factors significantly improves prediction of BCR in a post-prostatectomy PCa cohort. This could serve as a valuable tool to support clinical decision-making in patients with moderate and high-risk cancers.

Role of Multi-Parametric Magnetic Resonance Image and PIRADS Score in Patients with Prostate Cancer Eligible for Active Surveillance According PRIAS Criteria

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prognostic role of multiparametric-MRI (mp-MRI) in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa) eligible for active surveillance (AS) according to Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We analyzed prospectively 73 patients with PCa and PRIAS criteria for low-risk disease. All patients fitted criteria for AS but optioned surgery treatment. The mp-MRI was performed to define the likelihood of malignancy according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) score (1-5). Patients were divided in 2 groups: non-visible cancer lesion on MRI (PIRADS 2-3) and visible cancer (PIRADS 4-5). Preoperative clinical data (age, body mass index, prostate specific antigen (PSA) level, positive core biopsy, PSA density (PSAD)) and definitive pathological findings (staging, upgrading, unfavorable disease) were compared between groups. PIRADS score was correlated with pathological data to evaluate the prognostic role of mp-MRI; and preoperative variables and definitive pathology (upgrading, upstaging and unfavorable disease) were also assessed.

RESULTS

PSAD (p = 0.04) and pathological stage (p = 0.03) were significantly associated with the presence of visible disease. Visible disease was significantly associated with upstaging (p = 0.03). Correlation between PIRADS 5 and unfavorable disease was statistically significant (p = 0.02). The mp-MRI had adequate sensibility in detecting upstaging (92%), intermediate for upgrading (76%) and unfavorable disease (76%). Negative predictive value was higher for upstaging than for upgrading or unfavorable disease (96 vs. 68% and 64%). Multivariate logistic regression revealed that PIRADS 5 was a significant predictor of upstaging (p = 0.05, OR 16.12) and unfavorable disease (p = 0.01, OR 6.53).

CONCLUSION

A visible lesion on mp-MRI strongly predicts significant PCa in patients eligible for AS according to PRIAS criteria, based on upstaging and unfavorable disease. We believe that mp-MRI is an important tool and should be added to clinical selection criteria for AS.

Prostate Cancer: Utility of Whole-Lesion Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Metrics for Prediction of Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the additional value of whole-lesion histogram apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) metrics, when combined with standard pathologic features, in prediction of biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 193 patients (mean age, 61 ± 7 years) who underwent 3-T MRI with DWI (b values, 50 and 1000 s/mm(2)) before prostatectomy. Histogram metrics were derived from 3D volumes of interest encompassing the entire lesion on ADC maps. Pathologic features from radical prostatectomy and subsequent BCR were recorded for each patient. The Fisher exact test and Mann-Whitney test were used to compare ADC-based metrics and pathologic features between patients with and patients without BCR. Stepwise logistic regression analysis was used to construct multivariable models for prediction of BCR, which were assessed by ROC analysis.

RESULTS

BCR occurred in 16.6% (32/193) of patients. Variables significantly associated with BCR included primary Gleason grade, Gleason score, extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion, positive surgical margin, preoperative prostate-specific antigen level, MRI tumor volume, mean whole-lesion ADC, entropy ADC, and mean ADC of the bottom 10th, 10-25th, and 25-50th percentiles (p ≤ 0.019). Significant independent predictors of BCR at multivariable analysis were primary Gleason grade, extraprostatic extension, mean of the bottom 10th percentile ADC, and entropy ADC (p = 0.002-0.037). The AUC of this multivariable model was 0.94 for prediction of BCR; the AUC of pathologic features alone was 0.89 (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

A model integrating whole-lesion ADC metrics had significantly higher performance for prediction of BCR than did standard pathologic features alone and may help guide postoperative prognostic assessments and decisions regarding adjuvant therapy.

Nonvisible tumors on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging does not predict low-risk prostate cancer

Purpose

To determine whether multiparametric MRI could help predict the diagnosis of low-risk prostate cancer (PCA).

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed consecutive 623 patients with PCA who underwent multiparametric MRI before radical prostatectomy(RP). High-resolution T1- and T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic precontrast and postcontrast image sequences were obtained for each patient. Of the 623 patients, 177(28.4%) exhibited non visible tumors on MRI of clinical stage T1c. The imaging results were compared with the pathological findings with respect to both stage and Gleason scores (GS).

Results

Of the 177 prostatectomy patients with non visible tumors on MRI, pathological findings resulted in the upgrading of 49(27.7%) patients to a sum of GS 7 or more. 101(57.1%) patients exhibited tumor volumes greater than 0.5cc. The biochemical recurrence rate was significantly higher in the pathological upgraded group compared with the nonupgraded group after a mean follow-up time of 29 months. In the multiple logistic analysis, non visible tumor on MRI was not a significant predictor of low-risk PCA.

Conclusions

Even though cancer foci were not visualized by postbiopsy MRI, the pathological tumor volumes and extent of GS upgrading were relatively high. Therefore, nonvisible tumors by multiparametric MRI do not appear to be predictive of low-risk PCA.

The prostate-specific membrane antigen: lessons and current clinical implications from 20 years of research

OBJECTIVE

Despite a multitude of detection and treatment advances in the past 2 decades, prostate cancer remains the second leading cause of deaths due to cancer among men in the United States. Technological evolution and expanding knowledge of tumor biomarkers have invigorated exploration in prostate cancer therapeutics. Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) was one of the first prostate cancer biomarkers successfully cloned. Since then, it has been characterized as the prototypical cell-surface marker for prostate cancer and has been the subject of intense clinical inquiry. In this article, we review the relevant research in PSMA on the 20th anniversary of its cloning.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A PubMed search using the keywords "prostate-specific membrane antigen" or "glutamate carboxypeptidase II" provided 1019 results. An additional 3 abstracts were included from scientific meetings. Articles were vetted by title and abstract with emphasis placed on those with clinically relevant findings.

RESULTS

Sixty articles were selected for inclusion. PSMA was discovered and cloned in 1993. Its structure and function were further delineated in the ensuing decade. Consensus sites of expression in normal physiology are prostate, kidney, nervous system, and small intestine. PSMA has been implicated in the neovasculature of several tumors including urothelial and renal cell carcinomas. In prostate cancer, expression of PSMA is directly related to the Gleason grade. PSMA has been tested both in imaging and therapeutics in a number of prostate cancer clinical trials. Several recent approaches to target PSMA include the use of small molecule inhibitors, PSMA-based immunotherapy, RNA aptamer conjugates, and PSMA-targeted prodrug therapy. Future study of PSMA in prostate cancer might focus on its intracellular functions and possible role in tumor neurogenesis.

CONCLUSIONS

Twenty years from its discovery, PSMA represents a viable biomarker and treatment target in prostate cancer. Research to delineate its precise role in prostate carcinogenesis and within the therapeutic armamentarium for patients with prostate cancer remains encouraging.

Performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation and management of clinically low-risk prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article is to review the multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mMRI) of the prostate and MR-guided prostate biopsy, and their role in the evaluation and management of men with low-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS

We performed a literature review based on the MEDLINE database search for publications on the role of mMRI (a) in detection and localization of prostate cancer, prediction of tumor aggressiveness and progression and (b) in guiding targeted prostate biopsy.

RESULTS

The mMRI, particularly diffusion-weighted imaging with T2-weighted imaging, is a useful tool for tumor localization in low-risk prostate cancer as it can detect lesions that are more likely missed on extended biopsy schemes and can identify clinically significant disease requiring definitive treatment. The MR-guided biopsy of the most suspicious lesions enables more accurate and safer approach to guide enrollment into the active surveillance program. However, the MR-guided biopsy is complex. The fusion of MRI data with transrectal ultrasound for the purpose of biopsy provides a more feasible technique with documented accurate sampling.

CONCLUSION

Although the mMRI is not routinely used for risk stratification and prognostic assessment in prostate cancer, it can provide valuable information to guide management of men with low-risk disease. Incorporation of mMRI into the workup and monitoring of patients with low-risk prostate cancer can help discriminate clinically significant disease from indolent disease. Targeted biopsy of MR-suspicious lesions enables accurate sampling of potentially aggressive tumors that may affect outcomes.

Endorectal MRI of prostate cancer: incremental prognostic importance of gross locally advanced disease

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency and incremental prognostic importance of gross locally advanced disease seen at endorectal MRI in patients with prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively identified the cases of all patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer who underwent pretreatment endorectal MRI over a 6-year period (n = 1777). Three experienced radiologists identified by consensus patients with gross locally advanced disease, defined as unequivocal extracapsular extension or unequivocal seminal vesicle invasion. Outcome among these patients was compared with that in a control group without gross locally advanced disease matched by D'Amico risk stratification.

RESULTS

Sixty-six of 1777 (3.7%) patients had gross locally advanced disease. One of 1085 (0.1%) patients had low-risk disease, 25 of 489 (5.1%) had intermediate-risk disease, and 40 of 203 (19.7%) had high-risk disease. Follow-up data were available for 44 of these 66 patients. During a median follow-up period of 79 months, biochemical failure and metastasis had developed in 17 and 6 of these 44 patients compared with 9 and none of the 65 patients in the control group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Almost 4% of patients with prostate cancer, particularly those with intermediate- and high-risk disease, have gross locally advanced disease at endorectal MRI and have a significantly worse prognosis than matched controls. These patients may be candidates for more aggressive treatment.

Prostate cancer: prediction of biochemical failure after external-beam radiation therapy--Kattan nomogram and endorectal MR imaging estimation of tumor volume

PURPOSE

To determine whether magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging findings can improve predictions made with the Kattan nomogram for radiation therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The institutional review board approved this retrospective HIPAA-compliant study. Ninety-nine men who underwent endorectal MR and MR spectroscopy before external-beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer (January 1998 to June 2007) were included. Linear predictors were calculated with input variables from the study sample and the Kattan original coefficients. The linear predictor is a single weighted value that combines information of all predictor variables in a model, where the weight of each value is its association with the outcome. Two radiologists independently reviewed all MR images to determine extent of disease; a third independent reader resolved discrepancies. Biochemical failure was defined as a serum prostate-specific antigen level of 2 ng/mL (2 μg/L) or more above nadir. Cox proportional hazard models were used to determine the probabilities of treatment failure (biochemical failure) in 5 years. One model included only the Kattan nomogram data; the other also incorporated imaging findings. The discrimination performance of all models was determined with receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analyses. These analyses were followed by an assessment of net risk reclassification.

RESULTS

The areas under the ROC curve for the Kattan nomogram and the model incorporating MR imaging findings were 61.1% (95% confidence interval: 58.1%, 64.0%) and 78.0% (95% confidence interval: 75.7%, 80.4%), respectively. Comparison of performance showed that the model with imaging findings performed significantly better than did the model with clinical variables alone (P < .001). Overall, the addition of imaging findings led to an improvement in risk classification of about 28%, ranging from approximately a minimum of 16% to a maximum of 39%, depending on the risk change considered important.

CONCLUSION

MR imaging data improve the prediction of biochemical failure with the Kattan nomogram after external-beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer. The number needed to image to improve the prediction of biochemical failure in one patient ranged from three to six.

D'Amico risk stratification correlates with degree of suspicion of prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging

PURPOSE

We determined whether there is a correlation between D'Amico risk stratification and the degree of suspicion of prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging based on targeted biopsies done with our electromagnetically tracked magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion platform.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 101 patients underwent 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate, consisting of T2, dynamic contrast enhanced, diffusion weighted and spectroscopy images in cases suspicious for or with a diagnosis of prostate cancer. All prostate magnetic resonance imaging lesions were then identified and graded by the number of positive modalities, including low-2 or fewer, moderate-3 and high-4 showing suspicion on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. The biopsy protocol included standard 12-core biopsy, followed by real-time magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion targeted biopsies of the suspicious magnetic resonance lesions. Cases and lesions were stratified by the D'Amico risk stratification.

RESULTS

In this screening population 90.1% of men had a negative digital rectal examination. Mean±SD age was 62.7±8.3 years and median prostate specific antigen was 5.8 ng/ml. Of the cases 54.5% were positive for cancer on protocol biopsy. Chi-square analysis revealed a statistically significant correlation between magnetic resonance suspicion and D'Amico risk stratification (p<0.0001). Within cluster resampling demonstrated a statistically significant correlation between magnetic resonance suspicion and D'Amico risk stratification for magnetic resonance targeted core biopsies and magnetic resonance lesions (p<0.01)

CONCLUSIONS

Our data support the notion that using multiparametric magnetic resonance prostate imaging one may assess the degree of risk associated with magnetic resonance visible lesions in the prostate.

An exploratory study of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy of the prostate as preoperative predictive biomarkers of biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE

Radical prostatectomy has significant side effects. Preoperative information predicting its long-term outcome would be valuable to patients and physicians. We determined whether pretreatment endorectal magnetic resonance imaging/magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging predicts biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Of 202 patients who underwent endorectal magnetic resonance imaging/magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging from January 2000 to December 2002 before radical prostatectomy 130 satisfied study inclusion criteria and were included in analysis. We compared imaging factors with potential predictive capability to biochemical recurrence data, including magnetic resonance imaging risk score based on local disease extent and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging index lesion characteristics, such as the number of voxels and degree of metabolic abnormality (magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging grade). We evaluated associations of these imaging variables with time to biochemical recurrence by Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for known predictors of biochemical recurrence, such as stage, grade and prostate specific antigen.

RESULTS

At a median 68-month followup there were 26 biochemical failures. Risk score, lesion volume and high grade voxels each correlated with time to biochemical recurrence. In a model combining clinical parameters risk score, lesion volume and at least 1 high grade voxel the magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging variables remained significant but the magnetic resonance imaging score dropped out.

CONCLUSIONS

Index lesion volume on magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging and high grade magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging voxels correlate with time to biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy even when adjusted for clinical data. Results suggest the preoperative predictive usefulness of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging/magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging in patients considering radical prostatectomy.

Modalities for imaging of prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is the second most common cause of cancer deaths among males in the United States. Prostate screening by digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen has shifted the diagnosis of prostate cancer to lower grade, organ confined disease, adding to overdetection and overtreatment of prostate cancer. The new challenge is in differentiating clinically relevant tumors from ones that may otherwise never have become evident if not for screening. The rapid evolution of imaging modalities and the synthesis of anatomic, functional, and molecular data allow for improved detection and characterization of prostate cancer. However, the appropriate use of imaging is difficult to define, as many controversial studies regarding each of the modalities and their utilities can be found in the literature. Clinical practice patterns have been slow to adopt many of these advances as a result. This review discusses the more established imaging techniques, including Ultrasonography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, MR Spectroscopy, Computed Tomography, and Positron Emission Tomography. We also review several promising techniques on the horizon, including Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI, Diffuse-Weighted Imaging, Superparamagnetic Nanoparticles, and Radionuclide Scintigraphy.

Predicting post-external beam radiation therapy PSA relapse of prostate cancer using pretreatment MRI

PURPOSE

To investigate whether pretreatment endorectal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings can predict biochemical relapse in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between January 2000 and January 2002, 224 patients (median age, 69 years; age range, 45-82 years) with biopsy-proven prostate cancer underwent endorectal MRI before high-dose (≥81Gy) EBRT. The value of multiple clinical and MRI variables in predicting prostate-specific antigen (PSA) relapse at 5 years was determined by use of univariate and multivariate stepwise Cox regression. Clinical variables included pretreatment PSA, clinical T stage, Gleason score, use of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy, and radiation dose. Magnetic resonance imaging variables, derived from retrospective consensus readings by two radiologists, were used to measure intraprostatic and extraprostatic tumor burden.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 67 months, PSA relapse developed in 37 patients (16.5%). The significant predictors of PSA relapse on univariate analysis were pretreatment PSA, clinical T stage, and multiple MRI variables, including MRI TN stage score; extracapsular extension (ECE) status; number of sextants involved by ECE, all lesions, or index (dominant) lesion; apical involvement; and diameter and volume of index lesion. Pretreatment PSA and ECE status were the only significant independent predictors on multivariate analysis (p < 0.05 for both). Extracapsular extension status was associated with the highest hazard ratio, 3.04; 5-year PSA relapse rates were 7% for no ECE, 20% for unilateral ECE, and 48% for bilateral ECE.

CONCLUSIONS

Magnetic resonance imaging findings can be used to predict post-EBRT PSA relapse, with ECE status on MRI and pretreatment PSA being significant independent predictors of this endpoint.

Is it time to consider a role for MRI before prostate biopsy?

The use of MRI in prostate cancer management is controversial and current guidelines underplay its role. Technological advances over the past 5 years, however, demand a re-evaluation of this position. In this article, we propose an increased use of MRI, not only in those with a diagnosis of prostate cancer but also for men before a prostate biopsy. The use of MRI before a biopsy can serve as a triage test in men with raised serum prostate-specific antigen levels, in order to select those for biopsy with significant cancer that requires treatment. This strategy could avoid biopsy, and hence unnecessary treatment, in those with no disease or insignificant cancer. In addition, avoidance of postbiopsy artifact caused by hemorrhage will lead to better local staging accuracy, while determining more accurately the disease burden. This approach could improve risk stratification by selecting those who require adjuvant therapy or dose escalation. Furthermore, MRI evaluation of cancer burden could be important in active surveillance regimens to select those needing intervention.

Prostate cancer: sextant localization at MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging before prostatectomy--results of ACRIN prospective multi-institutional clinicopathologic study

PURPOSE

To determine the incremental benefit of combined endorectal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging, as compared with endorectal MR imaging alone, for sextant localization of peripheral zone (PZ) prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective multicenter study, conducted by the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) from February 2004 to June 2005, was institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant. Research associates were required to follow consent guidelines approved by the Office for Human Research Protection and established by the institutional review boards. One hundred thirty-four patients with biopsy-proved prostate adenocarcinoma and scheduled to undergo radical prostatectomy were recruited at seven institutions. T1-weighted, T2-weighted, and spectroscopic MR sequences were performed at 1.5 T by using a pelvic phased-array coil in combination with an endorectal coil. Eight readers independently rated the likelihood of the presence of PZ cancer in each sextant by using a five-point scale-first on MR images alone and later on combined MR-MR spectroscopic images. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) were calculated with sextant as the unit of analysis. The presence or absence of cancer at centralized histopathologic evaluation of prostate specimens was the reference standard. Reader-specific receiver operating characteristic curves for values obtained with MR imaging alone and with combined MR imaging-MR spectroscopic imaging were developed. The AUCs were estimated by using Mann-Whitney statistics and appropriate 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Complete data were available for 110 patients (mean age, 58 years; range, 45-72 years). MR imaging alone and combined MR imaging-MR spectroscopic imaging had similar accuracy in PZ cancer localization (AUC, 0.60 vs 0.58, respectively; P > .05). AUCs for individual readers were 0.57-0.63 for MR imaging alone and 0.54-0.61 for combined MR imaging-MR spectroscopic imaging.

CONCLUSION

In patients who undergo radical prostatectomy, the accuracy of combined 1.5-T endorectal MR imaging-MR spectroscopic imaging for sextant localization of PZ prostate cancer is equal to that of MR imaging alone.

Pretreatment endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging features of prostate cancer as predictors of response to external beam radiotherapy

PURPOSE

To evaluate whether pretreatment combined endorectal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) findings are predictive of outcome in patients who undergo external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We retrospectively identified 67 men with biopsy-proven prostate cancer who underwent combined endorectal MRI and MRSI at our institution between January 1998 and October 2003 before whole-pelvis external beam radiotherapy. A single reader recorded tumor presence, stage, and metabolic abnormality at combined MRI and MRSI. Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox univariate and multivariate analyses explored the relationship between clinical and imaging variables and outcome, using biochemical or metastatic failure as endpoints.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 44 months (range, 3-96), 6 patients developed both metastatic and biochemical failure, with an additional 13 patients developing biochemical failure alone. Multivariate Cox analysis demonstrated that the only independent predictor of biochemical failure was the volume of malignant metabolism on MRSI (hazard ratio [HR] 1.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29-2.06; p < 0.0001). The two independent predictors of metastatic failure were MRI tumor size (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.03-1.73; p = 0.028) and the finding of seminal vesicle invasion on MRI (HR 28.05, 95% CI 3.96-198.67; p = 0.0008).

CONCLUSIONS

In multivariate analysis, MRI and MRSI findings before EBRT in patients with prostate cancer are more accurate independent predictors of outcome than clinical variables, and in particular, the findings of seminal vesicle invasion and extensive tumor predict a worse prognosis.

Prostate cancer: is inapparent tumor at endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging a favorable prognostic finding in patients who select active surveillance?

PURPOSE

To retrospectively determine whether inapparent tumor at endorectal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging is a favorable prognostic finding in prostate cancer patients who select active surveillance for management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Committee on Human Research approval was obtained and compliance with HIPAA regulations was observed, with waiver of requirement for written consent. Ninety-two men (mean age, 64 years; range, 43-85 years) were retrospectively identified who had biopsy-proved prostate cancer, who had undergone baseline endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging, and who had selected active surveillance for management. Their mean baseline serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was 5.5 ng/mL, and the median Gleason score was 6. Two readers with 10 and 3 years of experience independently reviewed all MR images and determined whether tumor was apparent on the basis of evaluation of established morphologic and metabolic findings. Another investigator compiled data about baseline clinical stage, biopsy findings, and serum PSA measurements. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the relationship between the clinical parameters and tumor apparency at MR imaging and the biochemical outcome.

RESULTS

At baseline MR imaging, readers 1 and 2 considered 54 and 26 patients, respectively, to have inapparent tumor (fair interobserver agreement; kappa = 0.30). During a mean follow-up of 4.8 years, 52 patients had a stable PSA level and 40 had an increasing PSA level. In multivariate analysis, no significant association was found between the baseline clinical stage, Gleason score, serum PSA level, or the presence of apparent tumor at endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging for either reader and the biochemical outcome (P > .05 for all).

CONCLUSION

Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging findings of tumor apparency or inapparency in prostate cancer patients who select active surveillance for management do not appear to be of prognostic value.

Role of magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging before and after radiotherapy for prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To describe the practical technical aspects of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) and to summarize the current and potential future status of MRI and MRSI in the localization, staging, treatment planning, and post-treatment follow-up of prostate cancer.

TECHNIQUE

Published contemporary series of patients with prostate cancer evaluated by MRI and MRSI before or after radiation therapy were reviewed, with particular respect to the role of MRI and MRSI in treatment planning, outcome prediction, and detecting local recurrence.

RESULTS

Volumetric localization is of limited accuracy for tumors less than 0.5 cm(3). Staging by MRI, which is improved by the addition of MRSI, is of incremental prognostic significance in patients with moderate and high-risk tumors. The finding of more than 5 mm of extracapsular extension prior to radiation seems to be of particular negative prognostic significance, and the latter group may be candidates for more aggressive supplemental therapy. The use of MRI to assist radiation treatment planning has been shown to improve outcome. MRSI may be helpful in the detection of local recurrence after radiation.

CONCLUSIONS

Only MRI and MRSI allow combined structural and metabolic evaluation of prostate cancer location, aggressiveness, and stage. Combined MRI and MRSI provide clinically and therapeutically relevant information that may assist in planning and post-treatment monitoring in patients undergoing radiation therapy.

Prostate cancer: role of pretreatment MR in predicting outcome after external-beam radiation therapy--initial experience

PURPOSE

To retrospectively determine if pretreatment endorectal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging findings are predictive of outcome in patients who undergo external-beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Committee on Human Research approval, with waiver of the requirement for informed consent, was obtained for this HIPAA-compliant study. Eighty men with biopsy-proved prostate cancer (mean age, 59 years; range, 47-75 years) who underwent endorectal MR imaging of the prostate prior to external-beam radiation therapy were retrospectively identified; details of baseline tumor characteristics, treatment, and outcome were recorded. Two experienced readers independently reviewed all MR imaging studies and recorded tumor T stage and the radial diameter of extracapsular extension (if present). Univariate and multivariate stepwise Cox regression analyses were used to investigate the relationship between baseline imaging and clinical predictive variables and the end point of metastatic failure.

RESULTS

At MR imaging, readers 1 and 2, respectively, considered 50 and 60 patients to have T1 or T2 disease (ie, organ-confined disease) and 30 and 20 patients to have T3 disease. After a mean follow-up of 43 months, four patients developed metastases. Univariate Cox analysis revealed that baseline serum prostate-specific antigen level, presence of extracapsular extension at MR imaging (according to either reader), and degree of extracapsular extension (according to either reader) were all significantly (P < .05) related to the development of metastases. Multivariate Cox analysis revealed that the sole independent predictive variable was mean diameter of extracapsular extension (relative hazard ratio, 2.06; 95% confidence interval: 1.22, 3.48; P = .007). In particular, three of five patients with extracapsular extension of more than 5 mm at pretreatment MR imaging developed metastases 24, 43, and 63 months after therapy.

CONCLUSION

The presence and degree of extracapsular extension at MR imaging prior to external-beam radiation therapy are important predictors of posttreatment metastatic recurrence.

Local Experience of Endorectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Prostate with Correlation to Radical Prostatectomy Specimens

Introduction: We evaluated the accuracy of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the staging of prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 32 patients who underwent endorectal MR prostate prior to radical prostatectomy. The tumour stage based on MR imaging was compared with the pathologic stage. The sensitivity and specificity of endorectal MR prostate in the evaluation of extracapsular extension (ECE) of the tumour were then determined. Results: MR correctly diagnosed 17 cases of organ-confined prostate carcinoma and 2 cases of locally advanced disease. In the evaluation of ECE, endorectal MR achieved a high specificity of 94.4%, low sensitivity of 14.3% and moderate accuracy of 59.4%. Conclusion: Endorectal MR prostate has high specificity for the detection of ECE. It is useful in the local staging of prostate cancer in patients with intermediate risk as this helps to ensure that few patients will be deprived of potentially curative surgery.

Value of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer diagnosis

MRI has shown its potential in prostate cancer (PCa) imaging. MRI is able to demonstrate zonal anatomy with excellent contrast resolution. Furthermore it can detect PCa dependent not only on tumor-size, histological grading, PSA levels, but also on technical equipment and reader's experience. Non-palpable PCas in the inner and outer gland can be detected by this technique. Another potential is that MRI is helpful for tumor staging and treatment planning as well as response evaluation. Besides the morphological information, MRI can give functional information based on metabolic evaluation with proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy and of tumor angiogenesis based on dynamic contrast-material enhanced MRI and diffusion-weighted imaging. In addition MRI can be used for targeted prostate biopsies; however, the clinical practicability is questionable. Furthermore many data about the value of MRI for PCa diagnosis are based on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy findings. Since there is lack of accuracy in fusing MRI images with TRUS images these limit the results of MRI for cancer diagnosis. However, in the future MRI may play an additional role in planning and monitoring minimally invasive PCa therapies. Although, MRI of the prostate seems to be useful, nevertheless this method remains expensive and lacks availability regarding the oncoming requirements.

Prostate Cancer Imaging—What the Urologic Oncologist Needs to Know

Appropriate imaging for prostate cancer patients depends on the clinical disease state of the patient and the question being asked. For patients who do not have a cancer diagnosis, ultrasound is the standard approach, in combination with a sextant biopsy. In the future, contrast-enhanced ultrasound and MR imaging-directed biopsy may improve biopsy yield and decrease biopsy number. For clinically localized disease, endorectal coil MR imaging and bone scanning may play a role in patients who have risk factors for extracapsular extension, but more data are needed to define the role of MR spectroscopy and lymphtrophic nanoparticle MR imaging. In the rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) setting after definitive local therapy, endorectal coil MR imaging may help define local recurrence, whereas bone scanning can be useful in the setting of higher PSA or rapid PSA velocity.

New Clinical Imaging Modalities in Prostate Cancer

In all prostate cancer disease states, exciting novel imaging technology is being tested that may affect the future care of our patients. New US, MRI, and nuclear medicine techniques are improving both the ability to stage patients and to follow treatment-related changes. See Table 3 for a summary of these novel imaging techniques. Important issues still need to be resolved, including standardizing patient populations within trials, demonstrating the reproducibility of these techniques between different centers, and understanding how information gained from these techniques should influence patient care. We eagerly await answers to these questions.

MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging of prostate cancer

The primary indication for prostate MR and MR spectroscopic imaging is evaluating men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer who are deciding whether to undergo surgery or radiotherapy. Other applications of MR and MR spectroscopic imaging in prostate cancer are not defined fully. Areas of research include volumetric localization of prostate cancer, in vivo MR spectroscopic imaging at high field strength, in vitro MR spectroscopic imaging at very high field strength, novel spectroscopic markers of malignancy,and interventional MR guidance of biopsy and therapy. MR spectroscopic imaging remains a relatively novel technique, and successful implementation is demanding. Nonetheless, only MR and MR spectroscopic imaging allow structural and metabolic evaluation of prostate cancer location, aggressiveness, and stage, and MR imaging provides clinically and therapeutically relevant information on prostatic and periprostatic anatomy.