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

John V Hegde, Robert V Mulkern, Lawrence P Panych, Fiona M Fennessy, Andriy Fedorov, Stephan E Maier, Clare M C Tempany, John V Hegde, Robert V Mulkern, Lawrence P Panych, Fiona M Fennessy, Andriy Fedorov, Stephan E Maier, Clare M C Tempany

Abstract

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.

Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Figures

Figure 1. MRI Localizer Imaging for Assessment…
Figure 1. MRI Localizer Imaging for Assessment of Endorectal Coil Placement
Sagittal localizing single-shot fast-spin echo (SSFSE) images to verify positioning of the endorectal coil prior to initiating diagnostic scanning. The top of the base (B) and the bottom of the apex (A) of the prostate are annotated for clarity. (a) Initially, the endorectal coil is low-lying, with its superior border lying posterior to the middle of the prostate gland (red arrow). The double-headed arrow highlights the area of signal hyperintensity, which only covers about two-thirds of the prostate in (a). (b) After repositioning of the coil, accurate coil placement is seen, as the entire prostate (red arrow) now shows a hyperintense signal, with the double-headed arrow now including the span of the entire prostate gland.
Figure 2. Prostate Hemorrhage following Biopsy Complicates…
Figure 2. Prostate Hemorrhage following Biopsy Complicates Cancer Detection on T2-Weighted Imaging
A 52 year-old man with PSA 5.8, Gleason 5+4=9, T2cN0M0 prostate cancer. (a) An axial T1-weighted image of the prostate showing possible areas of hemorrhage, which have a hyperintense signal (major hemorrhagic regions are starred). (b) An axial T2-weighted image of the prostate at the same level showing diffuse T2 signal hypointensity in the peripheral zone, indicating either tumor or hemorrhage. The white arrow in both (a) and (b) in the lateral region of the right side of the prostate shows an area suspicious for tumor, as there is T2-weighted signal hypointensity without T1-weighted signal hyperintensity.
Figure 3. T2-Weighted Images of Critical Findings…
Figure 3. T2-Weighted Images of Critical Findings in Prostate Cancer
(a) In a 61 year-old man with PSA 3.7, Gleason 3+3 =6, T2cN0M0 disease, an axial view of the prostate presenting a diffuse, capsule-contained peripheral zone (PZ) lesion with a “chalky” appearance. Notice how the PZ, usually hyperintense and clearly demarcated from the central gland (CG) which it surrounds, is now heterogeneous. (b, c) A different, 56 year-old man with PSA 9.3, Gleason 3+4=7, T3bN0M0 disease shows right-sided seminal vesicle invasion (white arrows) by tumor in axial (b) and sagittal (c) images. In the axial image (b), compare the hypointense, diseased right SV (white arrow) to the normal, hyperintense SV on the left (arrowhead). (d) In a 60 year-old man with PSA 134, Gleason 3+4=7, T4N0M0 disease, an axial image of the base of the prostate showing right-sided extracapsular extension (arrow) at 7 o'clock with probable involvement of the right SV (arrowheads). (e) In a 65 year-old man with PSA 40.1, Gleason 5+4=9, T4N1M1a disease, an axial view of the prostate displaying a large posterolateral right peripheral zone lesion (arrow) at 7 o'clock which invades the right neurovascular bundle. This lesion starkly contrasts with the normal NVB on the left (arrowhead). (f) From the same patient as (e), significant pelvic lymphadenopathy is present in an axial view at the level of the seminal vesicles, including this 1.5 × 1.3-cm, right posterior obturator node (arrow). (g) In a 75 year-old man with PSA 11.4, Gleason 4+4 = 8, T3aN0M1b prostate cancer, an axial view of the spine at L5 demonstrating a 1.5 × 1.1-cm metastatic bone lesion.
Figure 4. Diffusion-Weighted Imaging of Prostate Cancer
Figure 4. Diffusion-Weighted Imaging of Prostate Cancer
A 58 year-old man with PSA 16.4, Gleason 4+3=7, T3aN0M0 prostate cancer. On a previous biopsy of this patient, the right side of the prostate was graded as Gleason 4+3=7 (an intermediate grade). (a) A DW image showing a dominant lesion (boxed), evidenced by the increased signal, found on the posterior right side at 7 o'clock. (b) Concordantly, the ADC map, generated from the DWI data, shows a darkened signal, indicating restricted diffusion at the same level and region as in (a). (c) For comparison, the T2-weighted image at the same level, showing a hypointense lesion (boxed) in the same region of the gland as the dominant lesion seen in (a) and (b). The ADC value in the region of tumor is 680 × 10-6 mm2/s, while the ADC value in the less suspicious contralateral side of the prostate is 1150 × 10-6 mm2/s. Thus, both morphologic and quantitative diffusion imaging data support the biopsy finding of prostate cancer on the right side of the gland.
Figure 5. Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Imaging of Prostate…
Figure 5. Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Imaging of Prostate Cancer
The following images are from a 61 year-old man diagnosed with PSA 4.1, Gleason 4+4 = 8, T2cN0M0 prostate cancer. (a) An axial T2-weighted image of the prostate with an unsuspicious, high signal intensity region of PZ prostate (outlined in green). (b) An axial T2-weighted image of the prostate at a different level with a focal region of hypointense signal in the PZ suspicious for prostate cancer (outlined in red). (c) A Ktrans (forward volume transfer constant) map at the same level as the unsuspicious region in (a), showing low enhancement (blue indicates low enhancement) in the ROI. (d) In contrast, a Ktrans map for the same level as the suspicious region in (b) reveals focal enhancement (yellow and red indicate higher levels of enhancement). (e) A ve (the fraction of extracellular extravascular space) map for the unsuspicious region, indicating no increased fraction relative to the rest of the prostate. (f) The ve map for the suspicious region in (b) shows lower signal (light blue) in the ROI compared to the background prostate gland, as expected in prostate cancer. (g) Kinetic curves of gadolinium concentration versus time for the normal (green) and tumor (red) regions of interest. Overall, the region suspicious for tumor demonstrates lower signal intensity on T2-weighted imaging, higher Ktrans, lower ve, and greater enhancement (higher maximum concentration of contrast reached, as seen in the kinetic curves) as compared to the normal region of interest.
Figure 6. MRS Imaging of Prostate Cancer
Figure 6. MRS Imaging of Prostate Cancer
Images and post-image processing data from a man with biopsy-diagnosed prostate cancer. (a) An axial T2-weighted image of a prostate divided into voxels for MRS imaging analysis. (b) The MR spectra for choline+creatine (the first dominant “composite” peak from the left of each spectrum) and citrate (the second dominant peak from the left). The blue voxel incorporating unsuspicious central gland on T2-weighted imaging (a) shows a normal spectrum along with a normal (Cho+Cr)/Cit ratio, with much more citrate than choline+creatine present (see spectrum also boxed in blue in (b)). Alternatively, the red voxel contains peripheral zone prostate which has T2 hypointensity, making it suspicious for cancer (notably, the associated T1 image was negative for hemorrhage). The voxel's associated spectrum (boxed in red in (b)) shows a higher (Cho+Cr)/Cit ratio (approximately equal peaks) than seen in the unsuspicious blue voxel. This indicates a possible region of tumor in the red voxel's region, especially given the suspicious hypointense signal on T2-weighted imaging.

References

    1. Prasad SM, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, Nguyen PL, Hu JC. Inappropriate utilization of radiographic imaging in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer in the United States. Cancer. 2011;118(5):1260–1270.
    1. Poon PY, McCallum RW, Henkelman MM, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate. Radiology. 1985;154(1):143–149.
    1. Hricak H, Dooms GC, Jeffrey RB, et al. Prostatic carcinoma: staging by clinical assessment, CT, and MR imaging. Radiology. 1987;162(2):331–336.
    1. Martin JF, Hajek P, Baker L, Gylys-Morin V, Fitzmorris-Glass R, Mattrey RR. Inflatable surface coil for MR imaging of the prostate. Radiology. 1988;167(1):268–270.
    1. Schnall MD, Lenkinski RE, Pollack HM, Imai Y, Kressel HY. Prostate: MR imaging with an endorectal surface coil. Radiology. 1989;172(2):570–574.
    1. Tempany CM, Rahmouni AD, Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Zerhouni EA. Invasion of the neurovascular bundle by prostate cancer: evaluation with MR imaging. Radiology. 1991;181(1):107–112.
    1. Melki PS, Mulkern RV, Panych LP, Jolesz FA. Comparing the FAISE method with conventional dual-echo sequences. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1991;1(3):319–326.
    1. Tempany CM, Zhou X, Zerhouni EA, et al. Staging of prostate cancer: results of Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group project comparison of three MR imaging techniques. Radiology. 1994;192(1):47–54.
    1. Hricak H, Choyke PL, Eberhardt SC, Leibel SA, Scardino PT. Imaging prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary perspective. Radiology. 2007;243(1):28–53.
    1. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, et al. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology. 2011;259(2):453–461.
    1. Zakian KL, Sircar K, Hricak H, et al. Correlation of proton MR spectroscopic imaging with gleason score based on step-section pathologic analysis after radical prostatectomy. Radiology. 2005;234(3):804–814.
    1. Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, et al. Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology. 2011;261(1):46–66.
    1. Mazaheri Y, Shukla-Dave A, Muellner A, Hricak H. MR imaging of the prostate in clinical practice. MAGMA. 2008;21(6):379–392.
    1. Masterson TA, Touijer K. The role of endorectal coil MRI in preoperative staging and decision-making for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. MAGMA. 2008;21(6):371–377.
    1. Umbehr M, Bachmann LM, Held U, et al. Combined magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2009;55(3):575–590.
    1. Rouviere O, Hartman RP, Lyonnet D. Prostate MR imaging at high-field strength: evolution or revolution? Eur Radiol. 2006;16(2):276–284.
    1. Hricak H, White S, Vigneron D, et al. Carcinoma of the prostate gland: MR imaging with pelvic phased-array coils versus integrated endorectal--pelvic phased-array coils. Radiology. 1994;193(3):703–709.
    1. Heijmink SW, Futterer JJ, Hambrock T, et al. Prostate cancer: body-array versus endorectal coil MR imaging at 3 T--comparison of image quality, localization, and staging performance. Radiology. 2007;244(1):184–195.
    1. Noworolski SM, Crane JC, Vigneron DB, Kurhanewicz J. A clinical comparison of rigid and inflatable endorectal-coil probes for MRI and 3D MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) of the prostate. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;27(5):1077–1082.
    1. Prando A, Kurhanewicz J, Borges AP, Oliveira EM, Jr, Figueiredo E. Prostatic biopsy directed with endorectal MR spectroscopic imaging findings in patients with elevated prostate specific antigen levels and prior negative biopsy findings: early experience. Radiology. 2005;236(3):903–910.
    1. Turkbey B, Pinto PA, Mani H, et al. Prostate cancer: value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection--histopathologic correlation. Radiology. 2010;255(1):89–99.
    1. Rosen Y, Bloch BN, Lenkinski RE, Greenman RL, Marquis RP, Rofsky NM. 3T MR of the prostate: reducing susceptibility gradients by inflating the endorectal coil with a barium sulfate suspension. Magn Reson Med. 2007;57(5):898–904.
    1. Zelhof B, Lowry M, Rodrigues G, Kraus S, Turnbull L. Description of magnetic resonance imaging-derived enhancement variables in pathologically confirmed prostate cancer and normal peripheral zone regions. BJU Int. 2009;104(5):621–627.
    1. Scheenen TW, Heijmink SW, Roell SA, et al. Three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopy of human prostate at 3 T without endorectal coil: feasibility. Radiology. 2007;245(2):507–516.
    1. Gibbs P, Liney GP, Pickles MD, Zelhof B, Rodrigues G, Turnbull LW. Correlation of ADC and T2 measurements with cell density in prostate cancer at 3.0 Tesla. Invest Radiol. 2009;44(9):572–576.
    1. Kitajima K, Kaji Y, Fukabori Y, Yoshida K, Suganuma N, Sugimura K. Prostate cancer detection with 3 T MRI: comparison of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in combination with T2-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;31(3):625–631.
    1. Miao H, Fukatsu H, Ishigaki T. Prostate cancer detection with 3-T MRI: comparison of diffusion-weighted and T2-weighted imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2007;61(2):297–302.
    1. Kim CK, Park BK, Kim B. High-b-value diffusion-weighted imaging at 3 T to detect prostate cancer: comparisons between b values of 1,000 and 2,000 s/mm2. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(1):W33–37.
    1. Metens T, Miranda D, Absil J, Matos C. What is the optimal b value in diffusion-weighted MR imaging to depict prostate cancer at 3T? Eur Radiol. 2012;22(3):703–709.
    1. Yakar D, Heijmink SW, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, et al. Initial results of 3-dimensional 1H-magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging in the localization of prostate cancer at 3 Tesla: should we use an endorectal coil? Invest Radiol. 2011;46(5):301–306.
    1. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol. 2011;59(4):477–494.
    1. Wang J, Qiu M, Yang QX, Smith MB, Constable RT. Measurement and correction of transmitter and receiver induced nonuniformities in vivo. Magn Reson Med. 2005;53(2):408–417.
    1. Wicks DA, Barker GJ, Tofts PS. Correction of intensity nonuniformity in MR images of any orientation. Magn Reson Imaging. 1993;11(2):183–196.
    1. Fan A, Wells WM, Fisher JW, et al. A unified variational approach to denoising and bias correction in MR. Inf Process Med Imaging. 2003;18:148–159.
    1. Tustison NJ, Avants BB, Cook PA, et al. N4ITK: improved N3 bias correction. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2010;29(6):1310–1320.
    1. White S, Hricak H, Forstner R, et al. Prostate cancer: effect of postbiopsy hemorrhage on interpretation of MR images. Radiology. 1995;195(2):385–390.
    1. Turner R, Le Bihan D, Chesnick AS. Echo-planar imaging of diffusion and perfusion. Magn Reson Med. 1991;19(2):247–253.
    1. Padhani AR. Integrating multiparametric prostate MRI into clinical practice. Cancer Imaging. 2011;11 Spec No A:S27–37.
    1. Burdette JH, Elster AD, Ricci PE. Acute cerebral infarction: quantification of spin-density and T2 shine-through phenomena on diffusion-weighted MR images. Radiology. 1999;212(2):333–339.
    1. Langer DL, van der Kwast TH, Evans AJ, et al. Prostate tissue composition and MR measurements: investigating the relationships between ADC, T2, K(trans), v(e), and corresponding histologic features. Radiology. 2010;255(2):485–494.
    1. Langer DL, van der Kwast TH, Evans AJ, et al. Intermixed normal tissue within prostate cancer: effect on MR imaging measurements of apparent diffusion coefficient and T2--sparse versus dense cancers. Radiology. 2008;249(3):900–908.
    1. Bourne R, Kurniawan N, Cowin G, Sved P, Watson G. 16 T diffusion microimaging of fixed prostate tissue: preliminary findings. Magn Reson Med. 2011;66(1):244–247.
    1. Mulkern RV, Barnes AS, Haker SJ, et al. Biexponential characterization of prostate tissue water diffusion decay curves over an extended b-factor range. Magn Reson Imaging. 2006;24(5):563–568.
    1. Storas TH, Gjesdal KI, Gadmar OB, Geitung JT, Klow NE. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging: multiexponential T2 decay in prostate tissue. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28(5):1166–1172.
    1. Roebuck JR, Haker SJ, Mitsouras D, Rybicki FJ, Tempany CM, Mulkern RV. Carr-Purcell-Meiboom-Gill imaging of prostate cancer: quantitative T2 values for cancer discrimination. Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;27(4):497–502.
    1. Liney GP, Knowles AJ, Manton DJ, Turnbull LW, Blackband SJ, Horsman A. Comparison of conventional single echo and multi-echo sequences with a fast spin-echo sequence for quantitative T2 mapping: application to the prostate. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1996;6(4):603–607.
    1. Gibbs P, Tozer DJ, Liney GP, Turnbull LW. Comparison of quantitative T2 mapping and diffusion-weighted imaging in the normal and pathologic prostate. Magn Reson Med. 2001;46(6):1054–1058.
    1. Chan I, Wells W, 3rd, Mulkern RV, et al. Detection of prostate cancer by integration of line-scan diffusion, T2-mapping and T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging; a multichannel statistical classifier. Med Phys. 2003;30(9):2390–2398.
    1. Issa B. In vivo measurement of the apparent diffusion coefficient in normal and malignant prostatic tissues using echo-planar imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;16(2):196–200.
    1. Yoshizako T, Wada A, Uchida K, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient of line scan diffusion image in normal prostate and prostate cancer--comparison with single-shot echo planner image. Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;29(1):106–110.
    1. Wang XZ, Wang B, Gao ZQ, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of prostate cancer: correlation between apparent diffusion coefficient values and tumor proliferation. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;29(6):1360–1366.
    1. Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, Eberhardt SC, et al. Chronic prostatitis: MR imaging and 1H MR spectroscopic imaging findings--initial observations. Radiology. 2004;231(3):717–724.
    1. Tamada T, Sone T, Toshimitsu S, et al. Age-related and zonal anatomical changes of apparent diffusion coefficient values in normal human prostatic tissues. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;27(3):552–556.
    1. Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL, et al. Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;10(3):223–232.
    1. Sourbron SP, Buckley DL. On the scope and interpretation of the Tofts models for DCE-MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2011;66(3):735–745.
    1. Tofts PS, Berkowitz B, Schnall MD. Quantitative analysis of dynamic Gd-DTPA enhancement in breast tumors using a permeability model. Magn Reson Med. 1995;33(4):564–568.
    1. Parker GJ, Roberts C, Macdonald A, et al. Experimentally-derived functional form for a population-averaged high-temporal-resolution arterial input function for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2006;56(5):993–1000.
    1. Meng R, Chang SD, Jones EC, Goldenberg SL, Kozlowski P. Comparison between population average and experimentally measured arterial input function in predicting biopsy results in prostate cancer. Acad Radiol. 2010;17(4):520–525.
    1. Bottomley PA. Spatial localization in NMR spectroscopy in vivo. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1987;508:333–348.
    1. Weinreb JC, Blume JD, Coakley FV, et al. Prostate cancer: sextant localization at MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging before prostatectomy--results of ACRIN prospective multi-institutional clinicopathologic study. Radiology. 2009;251(1):122–133.
    1. Scheenen TW, Klomp DW, Roll SA, Futterer JJ, Barentsz JO, Heerschap A. Fast acquisition-weighted three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging of the human prostate. Magn Reson Med. 2004;52(1):80–88.
    1. Mulkern RV, Panych LP. Echo planar spectroscopic imaging. Concepts in Magnetic Resonance. 2001;13(4):213–237.
    1. Chen AP, Cunningham CH, Ozturk-Isik E, et al. High-speed 3T MR spectroscopic imaging of prostate with flyback echo-planar encoding. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;25(6):1288–1292.
    1. Pruessmann KP, Weiger M, Scheidegger MB, Boesiger P. SENSE: sensitivity encoding for fast MRI. Magn Reson Med. 1999;42(5):952–962.
    1. Kyriakos WE, Panych LP, Kacher DF, et al. Sensitivity profiles from an array of coils for encoding and reconstruction in parallel (SPACE RIP) Magn Reson Med. 2000;44(2):301–308.
    1. Sodickson DK. Tailored SMASH image reconstructions for robust in vivo parallel MR imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2000;44(2):243–251.
    1. Kurhanewicz J, Swanson MG, Nelson SJ, Vigneron DB. Combined magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopic imaging approach to molecular imaging of prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;16(4):451–463.
    1. Mulkern R, Bowers J. Density matrix calculations of AB spectra from multipulse sequences: Quantum mechanics meets In vivo spectroscopy. Concepts in Magnetic Resonance. 1994;6(1):1–23.
    1. Scheenen TWJ, Gambarota G, Weiland E, et al. Optimal timing for in vivo 1H-MR spectroscopic imaging of the human prostate at 3T. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2005;53(6):1268–1274.
    1. Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron DB, Hricak H, Narayan P, Carroll P, Nelson SJ. Three-dimensional H-1 MR spectroscopic imaging of the in situ human prostate with high (0.24-07-cm3) spatial resolution. Radiology. 1996;198(3):795–805.
    1. Kim JK, Kim DY, Lee YH, et al. In vivo differential diagnosis of prostate cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia: localized proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy using external-body surface coil. Magn Reson Imaging. 1998;16(10):1281–1288.
    1. Scheidler J, Hricak H, Vigneron DB, et al. Prostate cancer: localization with three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging--clinicopathologic study. Radiology. 1999;213(2):473–480.
    1. Garcia-Segura JM, Sanchez-Chapado M, Ibarburen C, et al. In vivo proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy of diseased prostate: spectroscopic features of malignant versus benign pathology. Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;17(5):755–765.
    1. Jung JA, Coakley FV, Vigneron DB, et al. Prostate depiction at endorectal MR spectroscopic imaging: investigation of a standardized evaluation system. Radiology. 2004;233(3):701–708.
    1. Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, Moskowitz C, et al. Detection of prostate cancer with MR spectroscopic imaging: an expanded paradigm incorporating polyamines. Radiology. 2007;245(2):499–506.
    1. Thomas MA, Lange T, Velan SS, et al. Two-dimensional MR spectroscopy of healthy and cancerous prostates in vivo. MAGMA. 2008;21(6):443–458.
    1. Kumar V, Jagannathan NR, Kumar R, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient of the prostate in men prior to biopsy: determination of a cut-off value to predict malignancy of the peripheral zone. NMR Biomed. 2007;20(5):505–511.
    1. Poon CS, Henkelman RM. Practical T2 quantitation for clinical applications. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1992;2(5):541–553.
    1. Westphalen AC, Reed GD, Vinh PP, Sotto C, Vigneron DB, Kurhanewicz J. Multiparametric 3T endorectal mri after external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012 doi: 10.1002/jmri.23672.
    1. Ung JO, Richie JP, Chen MH, Renshaw AA, D'Amico AV. Evolution of the presentation and pathologic and biochemical outcomes after radical prostatectomy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed during the PSA era. Urology. 2002;60(3):458–463.
    1. Wang L, Mazaheri Y, Zhang J, Ishill NM, Kuroiwa K, Hricak H. Assessment of biologic aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of MR signal intensity with Gleason grade after radical prostatectomy. Radiology. 2008;246(1):168–176.
    1. Liney GP, Turnbull LW, Lowry M, Turnbull LS, Knowles AJ, Horsman A. In vivo quantification of citrate concentration and water T2 relaxation time of the pathologic prostate gland using 1H MRS and MRI. Magn Reson Imaging. 1997;15(10):1177–1186.
    1. Oto A, Kayhan A, Jiang Y, et al. Prostate cancer: differentiation of central gland cancer from benign prostatic hyperplasia by using diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2010;257(3):715–723.
    1. Turkbey B, Shah VP, Pang Y, et al. Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? Radiology. 2011;258(2):488–495.
    1. Zelhof B, Pickles M, Liney G, et al. Correlation of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance data with cellularity in prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2009;103(7):883–888.
    1. Ocak I, Bernardo M, Metzger G, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer at 3 T: a study of pharmacokinetic parameters. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(4):849.
    1. Girouin N, Mege-Lechevallier F, Tonina Senes A, et al. Prostate dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI with simple visual diagnostic criteria: is it reasonable? Eur Radiol. 2007;17(6):1498–1509.
    1. Scherr MK, Seitz M, Muller-Lisse UG, Ingrisch M, Reiser MF, Muller-Lisse UL. MR-perfusion (MRP) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in prostate cancer: quantitative and model-based gadobenate dimeglumine MRP parameters in detection of prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2010;76(3):359–366.
    1. Franiel T, Ludemann L, Rudolph B, et al. Prostate MR imaging: tissue characterization with pharmacokinetic volume and blood flow parameters and correlation with histologic parameters. Radiology. 2009;252(1):101–108.
    1. Franiel T, Ludemann L, Rudolph B, Lutterbeck E, Hamm B, Beyersdorff D. Differentiation of prostate cancer from normal prostate tissue: role of hotspots in pharmacokinetic MRI and histologic evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(3):675–681.
    1. Giusti S, Caramella D, Fruzzetti E, Lazzereschi M, Tognetti A, Bartolozzi C. Peripheral zone prostate cancer. Pre-treatment evaluation with MR and 3D (1)H MR spectroscopic imaging: correlation with pathologic findings. Abdom Imaging. 2010;35(6):757–763.
    1. Scheenen TW, Futterer J, Weiland E, et al. Discriminating cancer from noncancer tissue in the prostate by 3-dimensional proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging: a prospective multicenter validation study. Invest Radiol. 2011;46(1):25–33.
    1. Kobus T, Hambrock T, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, et al. In vivo assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging at 3 T with an endorectal coil. Eur Urol. 2011;60(5):1074–1080.
    1. Haider MA, van der Kwast TH, Tanguay J, et al. Combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI for localization of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(2):323–328.
    1. Lim HK, Kim JK, Kim KA, Cho KS. Prostate cancer: apparent diffusion coefficient map with T2-weighted images for detection--a multireader study. Radiology. 2009;250(1):145–151.
    1. Mazaheri Y, Hricak H, Fine SW, et al. Prostate tumor volume measurement with combined T2-weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted MR: correlation with pathologic tumor volume. Radiology. 2009;252(2):449–457.
    1. Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T, et al. Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology. 2011;259(3):775–784.
    1. Futterer JJ, Heijmink SW, Scheenen TW, et al. Prostate cancer localization with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology. 2006;241(2):449–458.
    1. Delongchamps NB, Rouanne M, Flam T, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the detection and localization of prostate cancer: combination of T2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted imaging. BJU Int. 2011;107(9):1411–1418.
    1. Turkbey B, Mani H, Shah V, et al. Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. J Urol. 2011;186(5):1818–1824.
    1. Delongchamps NB, Beuvon F, Eiss D, et al. Multiparametric MRI is helpful to predict tumor focality, stage, and size in patients diagnosed with unilateral low-risk prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2011;14(3):232–237.
    1. Casciani E, Polettini E, Bertini L, et al. Contribution of the MR spectroscopic imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in the peripheral zone. Abdom Imaging. 2007;32(6):796–802.
    1. Mazaheri Y, Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, et al. Prostate cancer: identification with combined diffusion-weighted MR imaging and 3D 1H MR spectroscopic imaging--correlation with pathologic findings. Radiology. 2008;246(2):480–488.
    1. Langer DL, van der Kwast TH, Evans AJ, Trachtenberg J, Wilson BC, Haider MA. Prostate cancer detection with multi-parametric MRI: logistic regression analysis of quantitative T2, diffusion-weighted imaging, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;30(2):327–334.
    1. van As NJ, de Souza NM, Riches SF, et al. A study of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in men with untreated localised prostate cancer on active surveillance. Eur Urol. 2009;56(6):981–987.
    1. Arani A, Plewes D, Krieger A, Chopra R. The feasibility of endorectal MR elastography for prostate cancer localization. Magn Reson Med. 2011;66(6):1649–1657.
    1. Li S, Chen M, Wang W, et al. A feasibility study of MR elastography in the diagnosis of prostate cancer at 3.0T. Acta Radiol. 2011;52(3):354–358.

Source: PubMed

3
S'abonner