Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer

The Evolution of MRI of the Prostate: The Past, the Present, and the Future

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to discuss the evolution of MRI in prostate cancer from the early 1980s to the current day, providing analysis of the key studies on this topic. CONCLUSION. The rapid diffusion of MRI technology has meant that residual variability remains between centers regarding the quality of acquisition and the quality and standardization of reporting.

The value of prostate MRI with endorectal coil in detecting seminal vesicle involvement in patients with prostate cancer

Background:

In prostate cancer, detection of seminal vesicle involvement is important because it influences the treatment planning and prognosis of the patients.

Objectives:

The objective of this study was to determine the value of prostate MRI with endorectal coil in the detection of seminal vesicle involvement in patients with prostate cancer.

Patients and Methods:

A total number of 238 biopsy-proven prostate cancer patients were examined by 1.5 Tesla MRI with a combination of pelvic and endorectal coils to detect seminal vesicle involvement. After radical prostatectomy, the MRI results were compared with pathology results.

Results:

Seminal vesicle involvement was detected in 67 (28.1%) patients. Pathology confirmed the involvement of seminal vesicles by prostate cancer in 63 patients. In two patients, seminal vesicle involvement was diagnosed by pathology but not detected by MRI. The sensitivity was 0.97 [95% confidence interval = 0.89-0.99], the specificity was 0.98 [95% confidence interval = 0.94-0.99], the positive predictive value was 0.94 [95% confidence interval = 0.85-0.98], and the negative predictive value was 0.99 [95% confidence interval = 0.96-0.99].

Conclusions:

MRI with endorectal coil is a valuable imaging technique with suitable accuracy in detecting seminal vesicle involvement in prostate cancer.

Functional and molecular imaging: applications for diagnosis and staging of localised prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is currently the most common solid organ cancer type among men in the Western world. Currently, all decision-making algorithms and nomograms rely on demographics, clinicopathological data and symptoms. Such an approach can easily miss significant cancers while detecting many insignificant cancers. In this review, novel functional and molecular imaging techniques used in the diagnosis and staging of localised prostate cancer and their effect on treatment decisions are discussed.

Diagnostic performance of contrast enhanced ultrasound in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

We aimed to do a meta-analysis of the existing literature to assess the accuracy of prostate cancer (PCa) studies that use contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) as a diagnostic tool.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant original articles published up to August 2012. Characteristics of Included studies were recorded. Methodological quality was assessed by using the quality assessment of diagnostic studies tool. Pooled weighted estimates of diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR) were calculated. A summary receiver operator characteristic (SROC) curve was constructed to calculate the area under the curve (AUC). Publication bias analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies (2624 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Various contrast agents and imaging modes were applied. The independent random-effects summary showed a variation in diagnostic values. The summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and DOR were 0.70, 0.74, and 9.09, respectively. The weighted positive and negative LR were 2.81 and 0.35, with statistically significant between-study heterogeneity (P < .001). Sensitivity was better in positive patient studies than positive biopsy cores ones (0.78 vs. 0.64). SROC plot displayed value for AUC (0.82). Begg's test (P = .822) and Egger's test (P = .198) did not show evidence of publication bias.

CONCLUSION

CEUS is a promising tool in the detection of PCa, but it cannot completely replace systematic biopsy under the present circumstances. It is necessary to standardize imaging techniques, contrast agents and diagnostic criteria. Large samples, multi-center studies and high-quality prospective trials are necessary to assess its clinical value.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® external-beam radiation therapy treatment planning for clinically localized prostate cancer

Image-based radiation treatment planning and localization have contributed to better targeting of the prostate and sparing of normal tissues. Guidelines are needed to address radiation dose delivery, including patient setup and immobilization, target volume definition, treatment planning, treatment delivery methods, and target localization. Guidelines for external-beam radiation treatment planning have been updated and are presented here. The use of appropriate doses, simulation techniques, and verification of field setup are essential for the accurate delivery of radiation therapy. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria(®) are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances in which evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

Comparison of pelvic phased-array versus endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging at 3 Tesla for local staging of prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Several studies have demonstrated the superiority of endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) over pelvic phased-array coil MRI at 1.5 Tesla for local staging of prostate cancer. However, few have studied which evaluation is more accurate at 3 Tesla MRI. In this study, we compared the accuracy of local staging of prostate cancer using pelvic phased-array coil or endorectal coil MRI at 3 Tesla.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2005 and May 2010, 151 patients underwent radical prostatectomy. All patients were evaluated with either pelvic phased-array coil or endorectal coil prostate MRI prior to surgery (63 endorectal coils and 88 pelvic phased-array coils). Tumor stage based on MRI was compared with pathologic stage. We calculated the specificity, sensitivity and accuracy of each group in the evaluation of extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion.

RESULTS

Both endorectal coil and pelvic phased-array coil MRI achieved high specificity, low sensitivity and moderate accuracy for the detection of extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion. There were statistically no differences in specificity, sensitivity and accuracy between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Overall staging accuracy, sensitivity and specificity were not significantly different between endorectal coil and pelvic phased-array coil MRI.

Prebiopsy magnetic resonance spectroscopy and imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Existing screening investigations for the diagnosis of early prostate cancer lack specificity, resulting in a high negative biopsy rate. There is increasing interest in the use of various magnetic resonance methods for improving the yield of transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies of the prostate in men suspected to have prostate cancer. We review the existing status of such investigations.

METHODS

A literature search was carried out using the Pubmed database to identify articles related to magnetic resonance methods for diagnosing prostate cancer. References from these articles were also extracted and reviewed.

RESULTS

Recent studies have focused on prebiopsy magnetic resonance investigations using conventional magnetic resonance imaging, dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging, magnetization transfer imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy of the prostate. This marks a shift from the earlier strategy of carrying out postbiopsy magnetic resonance investigations. Prebiopsy magnetic resonance investigations has been useful in identifying patients who are more likely to have a biopsy positive for malignancy.

CONCLUSIONS

Prebiopsy magnetic resonance investigations has a potential role in increasing specificity of screening for early prostate cancer. It has a role in the targeting of biopsy sites, avoiding unnecessary biopsies and predicting the outcome of biopsies.