Carcinoma of the prostate gland: MR imaging with pelvic phased-array coils versus integrated endorectal--pelvic phased-array coils

Application of H2N-Fe3O4 Nanoparticles for Prostate Cancer Magnetic Resonance Imaging in an Animal Model

This paper presents the efficacy of a contrast agent based on H2N-Fe3O4 nanoparticles for the detection of prostate cancer in an animal model using a preclinical 9.4 T MRI system. The relaxivities r1 and r2 of the nanoparticles were 6.31 mM-1s-1 and 8.33 mM-1s-1, respectively. Nanoparticles injected in a concentration of 2 mg Fe/mL decreased the tumor-relative T1 relaxation across all animals from 100 to 76 ± 26, 85 ± 27, 89 ± 20, and 97 ± 16 12 min 1 h, 2 h, and 24 h post injection, respectively. The corresponding T1 decrease in muscle tissues was 90 ± 20, 94 ± 23, 99 ± 12, and 99 ± 14. The relative T2 changes in the tumor were 82 ± 17, 89 ± 19, 97 ± 14, and 99 ± 8 12 min, 1 h, 2 h, and 24 h post injection, respectively, while, for muscle tissues, these values were 95 ± 11, 95 ± 8, 97 ± 6, and 95 ± 10 at the corresponding time points. The differences in the relative T1 and T2 were only significant 12 min after injection (p < 0.05), although a decrease was visible at each time point, but it was statistically insignificant (p > 0.05). The results showed the potential application of H2N-Fe3O4 nanoparticles as contrast agents for enhanced prostate cancer MRI.

Prostate MRI and image Quality: It is time to take stock

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) plays a vital role in prostate cancer diagnosis and management. With the increase in use of mpMRI, obtaining the best possible quality images has become a priority. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) was introduced to standardize and optimize patient preparation, scanning techniques, and interpretation. However, the quality of the MRI sequences depends not only on the hardware/software and scanning parameters, but also on patient-related factors. Common patient-related factors include bowel peristalsis, rectal distension, and patient motion. There is currently no consensus regarding the best approaches to address these issues and improve the quality of mpMRI. New evidence has been accrued since the release of PI-RADS, and this review aims to explore the key strategies which aim to improve prostate MRI quality, such as imaging techniques, patient preparation methods, the new Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) criteria, and artificial intelligence on prostate MRI quality.

Additional Value of Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Sequences in Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Data from the PROMIS Study

BACKGROUND

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) is established in the diagnosis of prostate cancer, but the need for enhanced sequences has recently been questioned.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (DCE) improves accuracy over T2 and diffusion sequences.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

PROMIS was a multicentre, multireader trial, with, in this part, 497 biopsy-naïve men undergoing standardised 1.5T MP-MRI using T2, diffusion, and DCE, followed by a detailed transperineal prostate mapping (TPM) biopsy at 5 mm intervals. Likert scores of 1-5 for the presence of a significant tumour were assigned in strict sequence, for (1) T2 + diffusion and then (2) T2 + diffusion + dynamic contrast-enhanced images.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

For the primary analysis, the primary PROMIS outcome measure (Gleason score ≥4 + 3 or ≥6 mm maximum cancer length) on TPM was used, and an MRI score of ≥3 was considered positive.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Sensitivity without and with DCE was 94% and 95%, specificity 37% and 38%, positive predictive value 51% and 51%, and negative predictive value 90% and 91%, respectively (p >  0.05 in each case). The number of patients avoiding biopsy (scoring 1-2) was similar (123/497 vs 121/497, p =  0.8). The number of equivocal scores (3/5) was slightly higher without DCE (32% vs 28% p =  0.031). The proportion of MRI equivocal (3/5) and positive (4-5) cases showing significant tumours were similar (23% and 71% vs 20% and 69%). No cases of dominant Gleason 4 or higher were missed with DCE, compared with a single case with T2 + diffusion-weighted imaging. No attempt was made to correlate lesion location on MRI and histology, which may be considered a limitation. Radiologists were aware of the patient's prostate-specific antigen.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrast adds little when MP-MRI is used to exclude significant prostate cancer.

PATIENT SUMMARY

An intravenous injection of contrast may not be necessary when magnetic resonance imaging is used as a test to rule out significant tumours in the prostate.

MRI of the Prostate With and Without Endorectal Coil at 3 T: Correlation With Whole-Mount Histopathologic Gleason Score

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to prospectively compare image quality and diagnostic accuracy of clinically significant prostate cancer with and without endorectal coil (ERC) at 3 T using a combination of T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Twenty-three patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer underwent MRI with and without ERC at the same visit. Patients subsequently underwent radical prostatectomy. Specimens were assessed by whole-mount histopathologic examination. Two radiologists reviewed MR images for image quality (5-point scale) and disease using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems version 2 (PI-RADSv2). Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the ROC curve (AUC) were calculated with and without ERC. Additionally, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) was correlated with Gleason score and ADC values of each lesion were compared with and without ERC. RESULTS. Image quality was comparable with and without ERC (3.8 vs 3.5). Twenty-nine cancer foci larger than 0.5 cm in diameter were found in 23 patients on histopathologic examination; 18 tumors had a Gleason score of 7 or greater. Two radiologists recorded AUC for tumors with a Gleason score of 7 or greater as 0.96 and 0.96 with ERC and 0.88 and 0.91 without ERC. All 13 tumors with a Gleason score of 3 + 4 were detected with ERC, but only 9 were detected without ERC. One of five tumors with Gleason scores less than 3 + 4 was missed with and without ERC. ADC significantly correlated with Gleason score. There was no significant difference in the ADC of a lesion on MRI with and without an ERC. CONCLUSION. MRI with and without ERC was equally accurate at showing prostate cancers with Gleason scores of 4 + 3 or greater. However, MRI with ERC was superior at showing cancer with a Gleason score of 3 + 4. There was no significant difference in ADC values between scores acquired with or without an ERC.

Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing prostate Cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The application of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for diagnosis of prostate cancer has been recommended by the European Association of Urology (EAU), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), and European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) guidelines. The purpose of this study is to systematically review the literature on assessing the accuracy of mpMRI in patients with suspicion of prostate cancer.

METHOD

We searched Embase, Pubmed and Cochrane online databases from January 12,000 to October 272,018 to extract articles exploring the possibilities that the pre-biopsy mpMRI can enhance the diagnosis accuracy of prostate cancer. The numbers of true- and false-negative results and true- and false-positive ones were extracted to calculate the corresponding sensitivity and specificity of mpMRI. Study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2 tool. Random effects meta-analysis and a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) plot were performed for further study.

RESULTS

After searching, we acquired 3741 articles for reference, of which 29 studies with 8503 participants were eligible for inclusion. MpMRI maintained impressive diagnostic value, the area under the HSROC curve was 0.87 (95%CI,0.84-0.90). The sensitivity and specificity for mpMRI were 0.87 [95%CI, 0.81-0.91] and 0.68 [95%CI,0.56-0.79] respectively. The positive likelihood ratio was 2.73 [95%CI 1.90-3.90]; negative likelihood ratio was 0.19 [95% CI 0.14,-0.27]. The risk of publication bias was negligible with P = 0.96.

CONCLUSION

Results of the meta-analysis suggest that mpMRI is a sensitive tool to diagnose prostate cancer. However, because of the high heterogeneity existing among the included studies, further studies are needed to apply the results of this meta-analysis in clinic.

Prostate MRI using an external phased array wearable pelvic coil at 3T: comparison with an endorectal coil

PURPOSE

To evaluate T2w and DWI image quality using a wearable pelvic coil (WPC) compared with an endorectal coil (ERC).

METHODS

Twenty men consecutively presenting to our prostate cancer MRI clinic were prospectively consented to be scanned using a wearable pelvic coil then an endorectal coil and pelvic phased array coil at 3T. Eighteen patients were suitable for inclusion. Axial T2w images were obtained using the WPC and ERC, and DWI images were obtained using the WPC, ERC, and PPA. Analysis was performed in consensus by two readers with experience in prostate MRI. The readers scored the T2w images using six qualitative criteria and the DWI images using five criteria. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was also measured.

RESULTS

T2w artifact severity was greater for an ERC than a WPC (p = 0.003). There was no significant difference in T2w qualititatve image quality by other measures. The distinction of zonal anatomy on DWI was superior for an ERC compared with both a WPC and a PPA (p = 0.018 and p < 0.001 respectively), and there was no significant difference in DWI image quality by other measures. SNR was significantly higher for ERC imaging for both T2w and DWI.

CONCLUSION

WPC imaging provides comparable image quality to that of an ERC, potentially reducing the need for an ERC. WPC imaging shows reduced T2w artifact severity and inferior DWI zonal anatomy distinction compared with an ERC. Imaging with a WPC produces a lower SNR than an ERC.

Proton MRS of cervical cancer at 7 T

The differentiation grade of cervical cancer is histologically assessed by examining biopsies or surgical specimens. MRS is a highly sensitive technique that images tissue metabolism and can be used to increase the specificity of tissue characterization in a non-invasive manner. We aim to explore the feasibility of using in vivo ¹ H-MRS at 7 T in women with cervical cancer to study tissue fatty acid composition. 10 women with histologically proven Stage IB1-IIB cervical cancer were scanned with a whole-body 7 T MR system with a multi-transmit system and an internal receive only monopole antenna. A STEAM sequence was used to obtain ¹ H-MRS data. Fatty acid resonances were fitted with Lorentzian curves and the 2.1 ppm/1.3 ppm ratios were calculated. ¹ H-MRS data showed fatty acid signals resonating at 2.1 ppm, 1.9 ppm, 1.5 ppm, 1.3 ppm and 0.9 ppm. Mean 2.1/1.3 ppm ratios were 0.019 ± 0.01, 0.021 ± 0.006, 0.12 ± 0.089 and 0.39 ± 0.27 for normal, Grade I, Grade II and Grade III groups respectively. Poorly differentiated tumor tissue (Grade III) showed elevated fatty acid ratios when compared with the well differentiated tumor (Grade I) or normal tissue. ¹ H-MRS in cervical cancer at 7 T is feasible and individual fatty acid signals were detected. In addition, poorly differentiated tumors show more fatty acid unsaturation. The 2.1 ppm/1.3 ppm ratio has potential for tumor characterization in a non-invasive manner for uterine cervical cancer.

The emerging role of imaging in prostate cancer secondary screening: multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and the incipient incorporation of molecular imaging

An increasingly robust body of evidence indicates that multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) prior to prostate biopsy can improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer while avoiding unnecessary biopsies. As a result, the use of mpMRI and biopsy platforms that allow for the real-time fusion of mpMRI and transrectal ultrasound images is now routinely used in clinical practice. On the horizon, molecular imaging offers the promise of improved sensitivity relative to mpMRI and early data would suggest that the combination of mpMRI and positron emission tomography using radiotracers targeting prostate-specific membrane antigen provide a more accurate assessment than either modality alone. In this review, we examine the current role of imaging to aid in the initial diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Imaging Facilities' Adherence to PI-RADS v2 Minimum Technical Standards for the Performance of Prostate MRI

PURPOSE

This study aimed to assess variability in imaging facilities' adherence to the minimum technical standards for prostate magnetic resonance imaging acquisition established by Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 (v2).

METHODS

A total of 107 prostate magnetic resonance imaging examinations performed at 107 unique imaging facilities after the release of PI-RADS v2 and that were referred to a tertiary care center for secondary interpretation were included. Image sets, DICOM headers, and outside reports were reviewed to assess adherence to 21 selected PI-RADS v2 minimum technical standards.

RESULTS

Hardware arrangements were 23.1%, 1.5T without endorectal coil; 7.7%, 1.5T with endorectal coil; 63.5%, 3T without endorectal coil; and 5.8%, 3T with endorectal coil. Adherence to minimum standards was lowest on T2 weighted imaging (T2WI) for frequency resolution ≤0.4 mm (16.8%) and phase resolution ≤0.7 mm (48.6%), lowest on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for field of view (FOV) 120-220 mm (30.0%), and lowest on dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging for slice thickness 3 mm (33.3%) and temporal resolution <10 s (31.5%). High b-value (≥1400 s/mm²) images were included in 58.0% (calculated in 25.9%). Adherence to T2WI phase resolution and DWI inter-slice gap were greater (P < .05) at 3T than at 1.5T. Adherence did not differ (P > .05) for any parameter between examinations performed with and without an endorectal coil. Adherence was greater for examinations performed at teaching facilities for T2WI slice thickness and DCE temporal resolution (P < .05). Adherence was not better for examinations performed in 2016 than in 2015 for any parameter (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Facilities' adherence to PI-RADS v2 minimum technical standards was variable, being particularly poor for T2WI frequency resolution and DCE temporal resolution. The standards warrant greater community education. Certain technical standards may be too stringent, and revisions should be considered.

Comparison of prostate distortion by inflatable and rigid endorectal MRI coils in permanent prostate brachytherapy imaging

PURPOSE

To study the deformation of the prostate by a rigid reusable endorectal coil and a balloon-type endorectal coil (BTC) during MRI of the prostate in brachytherapy imaging.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The prostate gland was contoured on 157 MRI scans from 52 prostate cancer patients undergoing brachytherapy. The curvature of the posterior prostate surface deformation was computed as a measure of prostate distortion and compared between scans with a BTC, rigid endorectal coil (REC), or no endorectal coil. For the nine patients who had MRIs with all three endorectal scenarios, a mean prostate deformation vector was also calculated between scenarios using deformable image registration. These measures of prostate distortion were compared with the prostate anterior-to-posterior to left-to-right ratio (AP/LR) on the largest prostate axial slice.

RESULTS

Significant differences in prostate curvature were found between scans without an endorectal coil versus a REC versus a BTC (p < 0.001). The mean prostate deformation was 3.9 mm due to the BTC and 2.0 mm for the REC (p = 0.012). The mean AP/LR ratio was 0.62 with a BTC versus 0.76 without a coil or 0.73 with a REC (p < 0.001), but no difference existed between scans with a REC versus no coil (p = 0.7). The AP/LR ratio showed moderate correlation with prostate curvature (r = 0.48), and with mean prostate deformation (r = -0.64 to 0.68).

CONCLUSIONS

The REC caused minimal deformation of the prostate compared with a BTC with adequate MR image quality, and calculation of the cross-sectional AP/LR ratio on the largest axial prostate slice can serve as a simple measure of prostate distortion.

Newer Imaging Modalities to Assess Tumor in the Prostate

Background

Several advances in the imaging of prostate cancer have been made in recent years. Diagnostic staging has become increasingly complex and confusing as newer technologies have developed more rapidly than research has been able to confirm or refute the accuracy of these technologies. By the time research has been performed, the technology used for a study has often become outdated and newer and more sophisticated imaging has become available.

Methods

We reviewed the literature on local and nodal staging of prostate cancer, as well as the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (MRSI), dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, positron emission tomography (PET), endorectal power Doppler, lymphotropic MRI contrast agents, and future possibilities such as diffusion MRI. This review is not systematic, but rather focused on these imaging modalities.

Results

Advances in MRI, ultrasound, and lymphotropic contrast agents have improved our ability to differentiate between T2 and T3 prostate tumors. PET imaging has proven less successful at staging prostate cancer. A literature review suggests patients with moderate risk of extracapsular extension benefit most from endorectal MRI evaluation. Spectroscopy, dynamic imaging, and lymphotropic contrast agents are expected to continue to improve sensitivity and specificity of staging of prostate cancer. Power Doppler evaluation with endorectal ultrasound has proved useful for evaluation during endorectal biopsy for identifying hypervascular tumors for directed biopsy. Diffusion-weighted MRI remains untested clinically and represents a future direction for research.

Conclusions

Future studies using these new techniques are needed to demonstrate changes in outcomes in large patient populations.

Prostate magnetic resonance imaging for brachytherapists: Anatomy and technique

PURPOSE

To present an overview of mp MRI techniques necessary for high-resolution imaging of prostate.

METHODS

We summarize examples from our clinical experience and concepts from the current literature that illustrate normal prostate anatomy on multiparametric MRI (mp MRI).

RESULTS

Our experience regarding optimal mp MRI image acquisition is provided, as well as a summary of prostate and periprostatic anatomy and anatomical variants that pose challenges for BT.

CONCLUSIONS

mp MRI provides unparalleled assessment of the prostate and periprostatic anatomy, making it the most appropriate imaging modality to facilitate prostate BT treatment planning, implantation, and followup. This work provides an introduction to prostate mp MR imaging, anatomy, and anatomical variants essential for successful integration mp MRI into prostate brachytherapy practice.

Impact of the use of an endorectal coil for 3 T prostate MRI on image quality and cancer detection rate

This work aims to assess the impact of an additional endorectal coil on image quality and cancer detection rate within the same patients. At a single academic medical center, this transversal study included 41 men who underwent T2- and diffusion-weighted imaging at 3 T using surface coils only or in combination with an endorectal coil in the same session. Two blinded readers (A and B) randomly evaluated all image data in separate sessions. Image quality with respect to localization and staging was rated on a five-point scale. Lesions were classified according to their prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS) score version 1. Standard of reference was provided by whole-mount step-section analysis. Mean image quality scores averaged over all localization-related items were significantly higher with additional endorectal coil for both readers (p < 0.001), corresponding staging-related items were only higher for reader B (p < 0.001). With an endorectal coil, the rate of correctly detecting cancer per patient was significantly higher for reader B (p < 0.001) but not for reader A (p = 0.219). The numbers of histologically confirmed tumor lesions were rather similar for both settings. The subjectively rated 3-T image quality was improved with an endorectal coil. In terms of diagnostic performance, the use of an additional endorectal coil was not superior.

Comparison of image quality and patient discomfort in prostate MRI: pelvic phased array coil vs. endorectal coil

PURPOSE

To compare image quality (IQ) and patient discomfort during prostate MRI using a pelvic phased array (PPA) coil and an endorectal (ER) coil.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety-eight patients (median age, 65.7; range 42.1-78.1) underwent prostate MRI on a 3T scanner including T2w and DWI acquired with PPA and an ER coil within the same exam. Acquisition time was kept similar for both acquisitions. Two radiologists evaluated aspects of IQ on a 5-point Likert scale and classified image artifacts. All patients completed a questionnaire on discomfort/pain regarding the ER coil using a visual analogue scale from 1 to 10.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in overall IQ for T2w images for both readers (reader 1, 3.27 ± 0.91 and 3.07 ± 0.84, p = 0.057; reader 2, 3.70 ± 0.75 and 3.77 ± 0.81, p = 0.555) for PPA and ER coils, respectively. Overall IQ for DWI acquired with PPA and ER coils was rated similar by reader 1 (3.03 ± 1.10 and 3.08 ± 0.80, respectively, (p = 0.67)), while reader 2 preferred ER coil images (3.27 ± 0.81 and 3.66 ± 0.85 (p < 0.05)). Susceptibility artifacts were more frequent in ER than in PPA coil images (109 vs. 75). Discomfort and pain experienced during insertion of the ER coil was low altogether (VAS score, 3.5 ± 2.1 for "discomfort" and 2.4 ± 2.4 for "pain").

CONCLUSION

T2-weighted images may be acquired with comparable IQ using a PPA coil as compared to an ER coil, while DWI images showed better IQ using the ER coil for one of two readers. The insertion of the ER coil caused low to moderate discomfort and pain in patients.

Role of Multiparametric MR Imaging in Malignancies of the Urogenital Tract

Multiparametric MR imaging (mpMRI) combine different sequences that, properly tailored, can provide qualitative and quantitative information about the tumor microenvironment beyond traditional tumor size measures and/or morphologic assessments. This article focuses on mpMRI in the evaluation of urogenital tract malignancies by first reviewing technical aspects and then discussing its potential clinical role. This includes insight into histologic subtyping and grading of renal cell carcinoma and assessment of tumor response to targeted therapies. The clinical utility of mpMRI in the staging and grading of ureteral and bladder tumors is presented. Finally, the evolving role of mpMRI in prostate cancer is discussed.

MR Imaging of the Prostate Gland

This article discusses MR imaging of the normal prostate and of disease conditions of the prostate including prostatitis, cystic lesions, amyloidosis, calculi, hematospermia, benign prostatic hyperplasia, and malignancy.

T2- and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 3T for the detection of prostate cancer with and without endorectal coil: An intraindividual comparison of image quality and diagnostic performance

OBJECTIVES

To intraindividually compare image quality and diagnostic performance of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) at 3T for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) using a pelvic phased-array coil (PAC) and a combined endorectal and pelvic phased-array coil (ERC-PAC).

METHODS

Forty-five patients were prospectively included and received mpMRI of the prostate using a PAC and an ERC-PAC during one imaging session. Two radiologists evaluated image quality and the most suspicious lesion according to the PI-RADS scoring system. Results of MRI-TRUS-fusion biopsy of the prostate served as reference standard. Patient comfort and acceptance were assessed using a standardized questionnaire.

RESULTS

Overall image quality for T2WI was rated significantly better with an ERC-PAC compared to a PAC (p=0.0038). The weighted kappa for PI-RADS scores for T2WI and DWI with a PAC and an ERC-PAC was 0.70 and 0.73, respectively. For a PI-RADS sum score including T2WI and DWI the area under the curve with a PAC and an ERC-PAC were 0.95-0.99 and 0.93-0.97, respectively (p=0.1395).

CONCLUSION

For T2WI and DWI performed at 3T index PCa lesion identification and evaluation did not differ significantly with both coil setups. Patients preferred MRI without an ERC. Therefore, the use of an ERC may be omitted in a prostate cancer detection setting.

Role of MRI in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer

Multiparametric MRI of the prostate consists of T1- and T2-weighted sequences, which provide anatomical information, and one or more 'functional' sequences, that is, diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences and magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Prostate MRI is the most accurate imaging method for local staging of prostate cancer and can also be used for the noninvasive evaluation of tumor aggressiveness. By magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy it is possible to target the most cancer-suspicious areas of the gland, especially in patients with a negative transrectal biopsy. In patients with biochemical recurrence after radical treatment, MRI is a valuable tool for the detection of local tumor recurrence and whole-body MRI can be used for the diagnosis of distant metastases.

Performance comparison of 1.5-T endorectal coil MRI with 3.0-T nonendorectal coil MRI in patients with prostate cancer

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To compare prostate morphology, image quality, and diagnostic performance of 1.5-T endorectal coil magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (MRI) and 3.0-T nonendorectal coil MRI in patients with prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MR images obtained of 83 patients with prostate cancer using 1.5-T MRI systems with an endorectal coil were compared to images collected from 83 patients with a 3.0-T MRI system. Prostate diameters were measured, and image quality was evaluated by one American Board of Radiology (ABR)-certified radiologist (reader 1) and one ABR-certified diagnostic medical physicist (reader 2). The likelihood of the presence of peripheral zone cancer in each sextant and local extent was rated and compared to histopathologic findings.

RESULTS

Prostate anterior-posterior diameter measured by both readers was significantly shorter with 1.5-T endorectal MRI than with 3.0-T MRI. The overall image quality score difference was significant only for reader 1. Both readers found that the two MRI systems provided a similar diagnostic accuracy in cancer localization, extraprostatic extension, and seminal vesicle involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonendorectal coil 3.0-T MRI provides prostate images that are natural in shape and that have comparable image quality to those obtained at 1.5 T with an endorectal coil, but not superior diagnostic performance. These findings suggest an opportunity exists for improving technical aspects of the 3.0-T prostate MRI.

Volume and landmark analysis: comparison of MRI measurements obtained with an endorectal coil and with a phased-array coil

AIM

To compare prostate volumes and distances between anatomical landmarks on MRI images obtained with a phased-array coil (PAC) only and with a PAC and an endorectal coil (ERC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Informed consent was waived for this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study. Fifty-nine men underwent PAC-MRI and ERC-MRI at 1.5 (n = 3) or 3 T (n = 56). On MRI images, two radiologists independently measured prostate volume and distances between the anterior rectal wall (ARW) and symphysis pubis at the level of the verumontanum; ARW and symphysis pubis at the level of the mid-symphysis pubis; and bladder neck and mid-symphysis pubis. Differences between measurements from PAC-MRI and ERC-MRI were assessed with the Wilcoxon RANK SUM test. Inter-reader agreement was assessed using the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).

RESULTS

Differences in prostate volume between PAC-MRI and ERC-MRI [median: -0.75 mm(3) (p = 0.10) and median: -0.84 mm(3) (p = 0.06) for readers 1 and 2, respectively] were not significant. For readers 1 and 2, median differences between distances were as follows: -10.20 and -12.75 mm, respectively, ARW to symphysis pubis at the level of the verumontanum; -6.60 and -6.08 mm, respectively, ARW to symphysis pubis at the level of the mid-symphysis pubis; -3 and -3 mm respectively, bladder neck to mid-symphysis pubis. All differences in distance were significant for both readers (p ≤ 0.0005). Distances were larger on PAC-MRI (p ≤ 0.0005). Inter-reader agreement regarding prostate volume was almost perfect on PAC-MRI (CCC: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.98-1.00) and ERC-MRI (CCC: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.99-1.00); inter-reader agreement for distance measurements varied (CCCs: 0.54-0.86).

CONCLUSION

Measurements of distances between anatomical landmarks differed significantly between ERC-MRI and PAC-MRI, although prostate volume measurements did not.

Optimizing D'Amico risk groups in radical prostatectomy through the addition of magnetic resonance imaging data

OBJECTIVES

To improve the predictive efficacy of the D'Amico risk classification system with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the pelvis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We studied 729 patients from a series of 1310 radical prostatectomies for T1-T2 prostate cancer who underwent staging pelvic MRI. Each patient was classified with T2, T3a or T3b MRI, and N (+) patients were excluded. We identified the therapeutic factors that affected the biochemical progression-free survival (BPFS) time (prostate specific antigen [PSA] levels>0.4ng/mL) using a univariate and multivariate study with Cox models. We attempted to improve the predictive power of the D'Amico model (low risk: T1; Gleason 2-6; PSA levels<10ng/mL; intermediate risk: T2 or Gleason 7 or PSA levels 10-20ng/mL; high risk: T3 or Gleason 8-10 or PSA levels>20ng/mL).

RESULTS

In the univariate study, the clinical factors that influenced BPFS were the following: Gleason 7 (HR: 1.7); Gleason 8-10 (HR: 2.9); T2 (HR: 1.6); PSA levels 10-20 (HR: 2); PSA levels>20 (HR: 4.3); D'Amico intermediate (HR: 2.1) and high (HR: 4.8) risk; T3a MRI (HR: 2.3) and T3b MRI (HR: 4.5). In the multivariate study, the only variables that affected BPFS were the following: D'Amico intermediate risk (HR: 2; 95% CI 1.2-3.3); D'Amico high risk (HR: 4.1; 95% CI 2.4-6.8); T3a MRI (HR: 1.9; 95% CI 1.2-2.9) and T3b MRI (HR: 3.9; 95% CI 2.5-6.1). Predictive model: Using the multivariate Cox models, we assessed the weight of each variable. A value of 1 was given to D'Amico low risk and T2 MRI; a value of 2 was given to D'Amico intermediate risk and T3a MRI and a value 3 was given to D'Amico high risk and T3b MRI. Each patient had a marker that varied between 2 and 6. The best model included 3 groups, as follows: 494 (67.7%) patients in group 1, with a score of 2-3 points (HR, 1), a BPFS of 86%±2% and 79%±2% at 5 and 10 years, respectively; 179 (24.6%) patients in group 2, with a score of 4 points (HR, 3), a BPFS of 60%±4% and 54%±5% at 5 and 10 years, respectively; and 56 (7.7%) patients in group 3, with a score of 5-6 points (HR, 9.3), a BPFS of 29%±8% and 19%±7% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. The median BPFS time was 1.5 years.

CONCLUSION

MRI data significantly improves the predictive capacity of BPFS when using the D'Amico model data.

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the management and diagnosis of prostate cancer: current applications and strategies

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become increasingly used worldwide in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. With advances in multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) technology, such as the use of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted imaging sequences, observational studies have evaluated the utility for mpMRI in the continuum of prostate cancer management, from improving the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, to planning radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy and the early detection of local recurrence. Furthermore, the potential for advanced imaging to reduce the burden of routine serial prostate needle biopsies for men on active surveillance is a promising area of research. MRI technology continues to evolve, and the potential applications in the management of prostate cancer care will require well-designed multi-institutional prospective clinical trials and rigorous efforts to standardize reporting and improve dissemination of expertise across institutions.

Multiparametric MRI in prostate cancer management

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men worldwide. The clinical behaviour of prostate cancer ranges from low-grade indolent tumours that never develop into clinically significant disease to aggressive, invasive tumours that may progress rapidly to metastatic disease and death. Therefore, there is an urgent clinical need to detect high-grade cancers and to differentiate them from the indolent, slow-growing tumours. Conventional methods of cancer detection-such as levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in serum, digital rectal examination, and random biopsies-are limited in their sensitivity, specificity, or both. The combination of conventional anatomical MRI and functional magnet resonance sequences-known as multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI)-is emerging as an accurate tool for identifying clinically relevant tumours owing to its ability to localize them. In this Review, we discuss the value of mp-MRI in localized and metastatic prostate cancer, highlighting its role in the detection, staging, and treatment planning of prostate cancer.

Prostate MRI: access to and current practice of prostate MRI in the United States

PURPOSE

MRI of the prostate has increasingly become more important in clinical medicine because of the risk of over-detection of low-grade, low-volume prostate cancer, as well as because of the poor sampling of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in high-risk patients. We sought to determine the access, imaging protocols, and indications for MRI imaging of the prostate in the United States.

METHODS

A brief survey was sent through mailing lists to members of the Society of Abdominal Radiology and Texas Radiological Society.

RESULTS

Thirty-six academic centers responded to the survey, 88.9% of which routinely perform prostate MRI. Nine centers routinely performed imaging at 1.5T with an endorectal coil (25%), 11 performed at 3.0T without an endorectal coil (31%), and 10 performed at 3.0T with an endorectal coil (28%). All institutions used T1-weighted axial and orthogonal T2-weighted sequences. Most groups used diffusion-weighted imaging (94.7%) and dynamic contrast enhancement (81.6%). Only 21.1% of groups performing prostate MRI routinely performed MR spectroscopy as part of their protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostate MRI is becoming a commonly performed examination at academic institutions, with most locations performing prostate MRI at minimum standards. There is a need to educate nonacademic practices regarding the addition of functional MRI techniques to anatomic techniques, increase the number of institutions that regularly perform prostate MRI, and increase access to direct MRI-guided biopsy in institutions that perform prostate MRI on a regular basis.

Role of high-field MR in studies of localized prostate cancer

Magnetic resonance imaging is attracting increasing attention from the uroradiological community as a modality to guide the management of prostate cancer. With the high incidence of prostate cancer it might come as a surprise that for a very long time (and in many places even at present) treatment decisions were being made without the use of detailed anatomical and functional imaging of the prostate gland at hand. Although T2 -weighted MRI can provide great anatomical detail, by itself it is not specific enough to discriminate cancer from benign disease, so other functional MRI techniques have been explored to aid in detection, localization, staging and risk assessment of prostate cancer. With the current evolution of clinical MR systems from 1.5 to 3 T it is important to understand the advantages and the challenges of the higher magnetic field strength for the different functional MR techniques most used in the prostate: T2 -weighted MRI, diffusion-weighted MRI, MR spectroscopic imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging. In addition to this, the use of the endorectal coil at different field strengths is discussed in this review, together with an outlook of the possibilities of ultra-high-field MR for the prostate.

The role of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of prostate cancer has long been plagued by the absence of an imaging tool that reliably detects and localises significant tumours. Recent evidence suggests that multi-parametric MRI could improve the accuracy of diagnostic assessment in prostate cancer. This review serves as a background to a recent USANZ position statement. It aims to provide an overview of MRI techniques and to critically review the published literature on the clinical application of MRI in prostate cancer.

TECHNICAL ASPECTS

The combination of anatomical (T2-weighted) MRI with at least two of the three functional MRI parameters - which include diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging and spectroscopy - will detect greater than 90% of significant (moderate to high risk) tumours; however MRI is less reliable at detecting tumours that are small (<0.5 cc), low grade (Gleason score 6) or in the transitional zone. The higher anatomical resolution provided by 3-Tesla magnets and endorectal coils may improve the accuracy, particularly in primary tumour staging.

SCREENING

The use of mpMRI to determine which men with an elevated PSA should undergo biopsy is currently the subject of two large clinical trials in Australia. MRI should be used with caution in this setting and then only in centres with established uro-radiological expertise and quality control mechanisms in place. There is sufficient evidence to justify using MRI to determine the need for repeat biopsy and to guide areas in which to focus repeat biopsy.

IMAGE-DIRECTED BIOPSY

MRI-directed biopsy is an exciting concept supported by promising early results, but none of the three proposed techniques have so far been proven superior to standard biopsy protocols. Further evidence of superior accuracy and core-efficiency over standard biopsy is required, before their costs and complexities in use can be justified.

TREATMENT SELECTION AND PLANNING

When used for primary-tumour staging (T-staging), MRI has limited sensitivity for T3 disease, but its specificity of greater than 95% may be useful in men with intermediate-high risk disease to identify those with advanced T3 disease not suitable for nerve sparing or for surgery at all. MRI appears to be of value in planning dosimetry in men undergoing radiotherapy, and in guiding selection for and monitoring on active surveillance.

MRI in prostate cancer

Imaging studies play an important role in detection and management of prostate cancer and MRI especially with the use of endorectal coil because of high contrast resolution is recognized as the best imaging modality in evaluation of prostate cancer. Multiparametric MR study including T1 and T2 weighted images, diffusion weighted images, dynamic contrast study and MR spectroscopy is useful for detection and local staging of prostate cancer as well as posts treatment evaluation of patients either after surgery or radiation therapy for detection of local recurrence.

Prostate imaging: evaluation of a reusable two-channel endorectal receiver coil for MR imaging at 1.5 T

PURPOSE

To prospectively compare image quality with use of a two-channel solid reusable phased-array endorectal receiver coil (SPAC) with that of the single-channel inflatable endorectal balloon coil currently in widespread use for 1.5-T magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the prostate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained. Multiparametric prostate MR imaging at 1.5 T was performed in patients who were suspected of having cancer. Thirty consecutive patients were included (mean age, 66.1 years; range, 49-76 years). The first 15 patients were imaged by using a balloon coil and an eight-channel external array, and the remaining 15 were imaged with a SPAC alone. One patient was imaged with both techniques. Axial T2-weighted images acquired at both standard and high spatial resolution were used to compare image quality between coils. Qualitative assessments of image quality were made separately by three radiologists. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) profiles were determined on a pixel-by-pixel basis in a 1-cm central band in the prostate by using T1-weighted axial images at the apex, midgland, and base. Interrater reliability was determined by using a two-way intraclass correlation coefficient, qualitative scores were compared by using the Student t test for independent samples, and SNR profiles were plotted by using a Biot-Savart curve approximation.

RESULTS

SNR of the SPAC was significantly better compared with that of the balloon coil at distances up to 3.0 cm at the apex and 3.5 cm at the base and midgland (P < .001). There was a 7% improvement in SNR at the mean maximal anteroposterior prostate dimension in this cohort and a 96% improvement at half this distance. At both standard and high spatial resolution, significant improvements in overall image quality (P = .015 and P < .001, respectively), visibility of the anterior gland (P = .009 and P < .001, respectively), and noise (P < .001 and P < .001, respectively) were seen when the SPAC was used. Interrater reliability was 0.536 (95% confidence interval: 0.461, 0.603).

CONCLUSION

Both SNR and image quality were significantly improved with use of the SPAC at 1.5 T compared with use of the single-channel inflatable endorectal balloon coil.

Multiparametric MRI of prostate cancer: an update on state-of-the-art techniques and their performance in detecting and localizing prostate cancer

Magnetic resonance (MR) examinations of men with prostate cancer are most commonly performed for detecting, characterizing, and staging the extent of disease to best determine diagnostic or treatment strategies, which range from biopsy guidance to active surveillance to radical prostatectomy. Given both the exam's importance to individual treatment plans and the time constraints present for its operation at most institutions, it is essential to perform the study effectively and efficiently. This article reviews the most commonly employed modern techniques for prostate cancer MR examinations, exploring the relevant signal characteristics from the different methods discussed and relating them to intrinsic prostate tissue properties. Also, a review of recent articles using these methods to enhance clinical interpretation and assess clinical performance is provided. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2013;37:1035-1054. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Semiautomatic registration of digital histopathology images to in vivo MR images in molded and unmolded prostates

PURPOSE

To evaluate a semiautomatic software-based method of registering in vivo prostate MR images to digital histopathology images using two approaches: (i) in which the prostates were molded to simulate distortion due to the endorectal imaging coil before fixation, and (ii) in which the prostates were not molded.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

T2-weighted MR images and digitized whole-mount histopathology images were acquired for 26 patients with biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy. Ten excised prostates were molded before fixation. A semiautomatic method was used to align MR images to histopathology. Percent overlap between MR and histopathology images, as well as distances between corresponding anatomical landmarks were calculated and used to evaluate the registration technique for molded and unmolded cases.

RESULTS

The software successfully morphed histology-based prostate images into corresponding MR images. Percent overlap improved from 80.4 ± 5.8% before morphing to 99.7 ± 0.62% post morphing. Molded prostates had a smaller distance between landmarks (1.91 ± 0.75 mm) versus unmolded (2.34 ± 0.68 mm), P < 0.08.

CONCLUSION

Molding a prostate before fixation provided a better alignment of internal structures within the prostate, but this did not reach statistical significance. Software-based morphing allowed for nearly complete overlap between the pathology slides and the MR images.

MRI-targeted prostate biopsy: a review of technique and results

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is of interest for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer and mpMRI-targeted biopsies are being used increasingly in clinical practice. Target acquisition is performed using a range of magnet strengths and varying combinations of anatomical and functional sequences. Target identification at the time of biopsy can be carried out in the MRI scanner (in-bore biopsy) or, more commonly, the MRI-target is biopsied under ultrasonographic guidance. Many groups use cognitive or visual registration, whereby the biopsy target is identified on MRI and ultrasonography is subsequently used to direct the needle to the same location. Other groups use registration software to show prebiopsy MRI data on real-time ultrasonography. The reporting of histological results in MRI-targeted biopsy studies varies greatly. The most useful reports compare the detection of clinically significant disease in standard cores versus mpMRI-targeted cores in the same cohort of men, as recommended by the STAndards of Reporting for MRI-Targeted biopsy studies (START) consensus panel. Further evidence is needed before an mpMRI-targeted strategy can be recommended as the standard intervention for men at risk of prostate cancer.

Seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer: evaluation by using multiparametric endorectal MR imaging

PURPOSE

To retrospectively evaluate the diagnostic performance of multiparametric endorectal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, including T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted (DW), and dynamic contrast material-enhanced (DCE) MR techniques, for the diagnosis of seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) and to determine the incremental value of DW MR and DCE MR images.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective HIPAA-compliant study was approved by the institutional review board, with a waiver of informed consent. The study included 131 patients (mean age, 68 years; range, 43-75 years) who underwent endorectal MR imaging before radical prostatectomy between January 2007 and April 2010. Two radiologists (A: experienced, B: less experienced) estimated the likelihood of SVI by using a five-point ordinal scale in three image-viewing settings: T2-weighted images alone; T2-weighted and DW MR images; and T2-weighted, DW MR, and DCE MR images. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated. Confidence intervals estimated with bootstrapping and the McNemar test or Fisher exact test were used to compare sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value.

RESULTS

Of the 131 patients, 23 (17.6%) had SVI identified after surgery. Review of T2-weighted MR images alone resulted in high specificity (93.1% and 93.6%, for radiologists A and B, respectively) and high negative predictive value (94.8% and 94.0%) but moderate sensitivity (59% and 52%) and positive predictive value (52% and 50%). Review of T2-weighted and DW MR images significantly improved specificity (96.6% [P = .02] and 98.3% [P = .003]) and positive predictive value (70% [P < .05] and 79% [P < .05]) without significantly improving AUC. Additional review of DCE MR images did not yield further incremental improvement.

CONCLUSION

Additional review of DW MR images improves specificity and positive predictive value in SVI detection compared with reviewing T2-weighted images alone. Addition of DCE MR images to this combination, however, does not provide incremental value for diagnosis of SVI.

Prostate cancer imaging: what the urologist wants to know

No consensus exists at present regarding the use of imaging for the evaluation of prostate cancer. Ultrasonography is mainly used for biopsy guidance and magnetic resonance imaging is the mainstay in evaluating the extent of local tumor. Computed tomography and radionuclide bone scanning are mainly reserved for assessment of advanced disease. Positron emission tomography is gaining acceptance in the evaluation of treatment response and recurrence. The combination of anatomic, functional, and metabolic imaging modalities has promise to improve treatment. This article reviews current imaging techniques and touches on the evolving technologies being used for detection and follow-up of prostate cancer.

MR Spectroscopic Imaging of Peripheral Zone in Prostate Cancer Using a 3T MRI Scanner: Endorectal versus External Phased Array Coils

Magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) detects alterations in major prostate metabolites, such as citrate (Cit), creatine (Cr), and choline (Ch). We evaluated the sensitivity and accuracy of three-dimensional MRSI of prostate using an endorectal compared to an external phased array “receive” coil on a 3T MRI scanner. Eighteen patients with prostate cancer (PCa) who underwent endorectal MR imaging and proton (1H) MRSI were included in this study. Immediately after the endorectal MRSI scan, the PCa patients were scanned with the external phased array coil. The endorectal coil-detected metabolite ratio [(Ch+Cr)/Cit] was significantly higher in cancer locations (1.667 ± 0.663) compared to non-cancer locations (0.978 ± 0.420) (P < 0.001). Similarly, for the external phased array, the ratio was significantly higher in cancer locations (1.070 ± 0.525) compared to non-cancer locations (0.521 ± 0.310) (P < 0.001). The sensitivity and accuracy of cancer detection were 81% and 78% using the endorectal ‘receive’ coil, and 69% and 75%, respectively using the external phased array ‘receive’ coil.

Magnetic resonance imaging-based treatment planning for prostate brachytherapy

PURPOSE

Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) is the standard imaging modality for planning prostate brachytherapy. However, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides greater anatomic detail than TRUS. We compared treatment plans generated using TRUS, endorectal coil MRI (erMRI), and standard body array coil MRI (sMRI).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Treatment plans were used from patients treated with permanent, stranded-seed (125)I brachytherapy in a prospective trial. All men underwent pretreatment planning based on TRUS, and all underwent erMRI before treatment and sMRI 30 days after the implant. Treatments for 20 consecutive patients were replanned on sMRI and erMRI images by investigators blinded to TRUS-based plans. Prostate volume/dimensions, radioactivity-to-prostate-volume ratio, and dosimetric parameters were compared.

RESULTS

Compared with TRUS, mean prostate volume measured by erMRI was smaller, medial-lateral diameter was larger, and anterior-posterior diameter was smaller, suggesting that the endorectal coil produced anatomic distortions. Craniocaudal prostate length was smaller on both types of MRI than on TRUS, suggesting that TRUS overestimates prostate length. Activity per volume was 7.5% lower for plans based on sMRI than on TRUS (0.901 vs. 0.974mCi/cm(3), p<0.001). sMRI plans had similar coverage of the planning target volume (PTV) (dose to 90% of the prostate [D(90)] 116.6% sMRI vs. 117.5% TRUS, p=0.526) and improved dose homogeneity (percentage of PTV receiving 150% of the prescription dose [V(150)] 47.4% sMRI vs. 53.8% TRUS, p=0.001 and percentage of PTV receiving 200% of the prescription dose [V(200)] 16.6% sMRI vs. 19.2% TRUS, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Staging erMRI should not be routinely used for treatment planning because it produces anatomic distortion. sMRI may have treatment planning advantages over TRUS because of superior soft-tissue delineation of the prostate and adjacent normal tissue structures.

Prediction of prostate cancer extracapsular extension with high spatial resolution dynamic contrast-enhanced 3-T MRI

OBJECTIVES

To assess the value of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) combined with T2-weighted (T2W) endorectal coil (ERC) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 3 T for determining extracapsular extension (ECE) of prostate cancer.

METHODS

In this IRB-approved study, ERC 3-T MRI of the prostate was performed in 108 patients before radical prostatectomy. T2W fast spin-echo and DCE 3D gradient echo images were acquired. The interpretations of readers with varied experience were analysed. MRI-based staging results were compared with radical prostatectomy histology. Descriptive statistics were generated for prediction of ECE and staging accuracies were determined by the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve.

RESULTS

The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for ECE were 75 %, 92 %, 79 % and 91 %, respectively. Diagnostic accuracy for staging was 86 %, 80 % and 91 % for all readers, experienced and less experienced readers, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

ERC 3-T MRI of the prostate combining DCE and T2W imaging is an accurate pretherapeutic staging tool for assessment of ECE in clinical practice across varying levels of reader experience.

KEY POINTS

• Endorectal coil (ERC) magnetic resonance imaging is widely used for imaging prostatic disease. • ERC 3-T MRI is reasonably accurate for local prostate cancer staging. • High diagnostic accuracy is achievable across different levels of reader experience. • MRI facilitates therapeutic decisions in patients with prostate cancer.

Automated vs. manual pattern recognition of 3D (1)H MRSI data of patients with prostate cancer

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess (1) automated analysis methods versus manual evaluation by human experts of three-dimensional proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) data from patients with prostate cancer and (2) the contribution of spatial information to decision making.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three-dimensional proton MRSI was applied at 1.5 T. MRSI data from 10 patients with histologically proven prostate adenocarcinoma, scheduled either for prostatectomy or intensity-modulated radiation therapy, were evaluated. First, two readers manually labeled spectra using spatial information to identify the localization of spectra and neighborhood information, establishing the reference set of this study. Then, spectra were labeled again manually in a blinded and randomized manner and evaluated automatically using software that applied spectral line fitting as well as pattern recognition routines. Statistical analysis of the results of the different approaches was performed.

RESULTS

Altogether, 1018 spectra were evaluable by all methods. Numbers of evaluable spectra differed significantly depending on patient and evaluation method. Compared to automated analysis, the readers made rather binary decisions, using information from neighboring spectra in ambiguous cases, when evaluating MRSI data as a whole. Differences between anatomically blinded and unblinded evaluation were larger than differences between evaluations using blinded data and automated techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

An automated approach, which evaluates each spectrum individually, can be as good as an anatomy-blinded human reader. Spatial information is routinely used by human experts to support their final decisions. Automated procedures that consider anatomic information for spectral evaluation will enhance the diagnostic impact of MRSI of the human prostate.

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.

Prostate cancer foci detected on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging are histologically distinct from those not detected

PURPOSE

We identified histological differences between prostate cancer foci that are detected and missed using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 49 patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, including T2-weighted imaging, including diffusion weighted imaging and dynamic contrast enhanced imaging, before prostatectomy were enrolled in the study. One radiologist identified areas highly suspicious for tumor. One pathologist identified and categorized tumors in terms of size, Gleason score, solid tumor growth, intermixed benign glands, loose stroma, desmoplastic stroma and a high malignant epithelium-to-stroma ratio. Differences between detected and missed tumors were assessed using logistic regression analyses based on generalized estimating equations for correlated data.

RESULTS

All histological features showed significant differences between detected and missed tumors on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (p<0.0001). Independent predictors of detection on multivariate analysis were size (OR 5.38, p=0.0077), Gleason score (OR 5.12, p=0.0094) and solid growth (OR 17.83, p<0.0001). Size, Gleason score and loose stroma were significant predictors of identification with diffusion weighted imaging on univariate analysis (p≤0.0245), while Gleason score (OR 17.05, p=0.0212) and solid growth (OR 34.90, p=0.0103) were independent predictors of identification with diffusion weighted imaging on multivariate analysis. Identification with T2-weighted imaging was associated with size and Gleason score (p≤0.01876). Identification with dynamic contrast enhanced imaging was associated with intermixed benign epithelium, loose stroma and a high malignant epithelium-to-stroma ratio (p≤0.0499). No combination of features served as independent predictors on multivariate analysis for T2-weighted imaging or dynamic contrast enhanced imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

There are fundamental histological differences between detected and missed prostate tumors using magnetic resonance imaging. Insights into these differences may facilitate the prospective role of magnetic resonance imaging in counseling and treatment selection for patients with prostate cancer.