Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Role of MRI for the detection of prostate cancer

  • Topic Paper
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The use of multiparametric MRI has been hastened under expanding, novel indications for its use in the diagnostic and management pathway of men with prostate cancer. This has helped drive a large body of the literature describing its evolving role over the last decade. Despite this, prostate cancer remains the only solid organ malignancy routinely diagnosed with random sampling. Herein, we summarize the components of multiparametric MRI and interpretation, and present a critical review of the current literature supporting is use in prostate cancer detection, risk stratification, and management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ADC:

Apparent diffusion coefficient

AS:

Active surveillance

bpMRI:

Biparametric magnetic resonance imaging

csPCa:

Clinically significant prostate cancer

DCE:

Dynamic contrast-enhanced

DWI:

Diffusion-weighted imaging

ERC:

Endo-rectal coil

FT:

Focal therapy

mpMRI:

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging

NPV:

Negative predictive value

PCa:

Prostate cancer

PIRADS:

PROSTATE Imaging–Reporting and Data System

PSA:

Prostate-specific antigen

GG:

Grade group

SBx:

Systematic biopsy

SI:

Signal intensity

T:

Tesla

TRUS:

Trans-rectal ultrasound

References

  1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A (2018) Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 68(6):394–424. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. McNeal JE, Bostwick DG, Kindrachuk RA, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA (1986) Patterns of progression in prostate cancer. Lancet 1(8472):60–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90715-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P, Davis M, Peters TJ, Turner EL, Martin RM, Oxley J, Robinson M, Staffurth J, Walsh E, Bollina P, Catto J, Doble A, Doherty A, Gillatt D, Kockelbergh R, Kynaston H, Paul A, Powell P, Prescott S, Rosario DJ, Rowe E, Neal DE, Protec TSG (2016) 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 375(15):1415–1424. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1606220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Force USPST, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, Owens DK, Bibbins-Domingo K, Caughey AB, Davidson KW, Doubeni CA, Ebell M, Epling JW Jr, Kemper AR, Krist AH, Kubik M, Landefeld CS, Mangione CM, Silverstein M, Simon MA, Siu AL, Tseng CW (2018) Screening for prostate cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA 319(18):1901–1913. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.3710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Engelbrecht MR, Barentsz JO, Jager GJ, van der Graaf M, Heerschap A, Sedelaar JP, Aarnink RG, de la Rosette JJ (2000) Prostate cancer staging using imaging. BJU Int 86(Suppl 1):123–134. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410x.2000.00592.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Guichard G, Larre S, Gallina A, Lazar A, Faucon H, Chemama S, Allory Y, Patard JJ, Vordos D, Hoznek A, Yiou R, Salomon L, Abbou CC, de la Taille A (2007) Extended 21-sample needle biopsy protocol for diagnosis of prostate cancer in 1000 consecutive patients. Eur Urol 52(2):430–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.02.062

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, Yakar D, Somford DM, Heijmink SW, Scheenen TW, Vos PC, Huisman H, van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Heerschap A, Futterer JJ (2011) Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 261(1):46–66. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11091822

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Vickers A, Carlsson SV, Cooperberg M (2020) Routine use of magnetic resonance imaging for early detection of prostate cancer is not justified by the clinical trial evidence. Eur Urol 78(3):304–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.04.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Culp MB, Soerjomataram I, Efstathiou JA, Bray F, Jemal A (2019) Recent global patterns in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.08.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Futterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P, Emberton M, Giannarini G, Kirkham A, Taneja SS, Thoeny H, Villeirs G, Villers A (2015) Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 68(6):1045–1053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cabarrus MC, Westphalen AC (2017) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate—a basic tutorial. Transl Androl Urol 6(3):376–386. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2017.01.06

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Ullrich T, Quentin M, Oelers C, Dietzel F, Sawicki LM, Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Albers P, Antoch G, Blondin D, Wittsack HJ, Schimmoller L (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate at 1.5 versus 3.0T: a prospective comparison study of image quality. Eur J Radiol 90:192–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.02.044

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Margolis DJ (2014) Multiparametric MRI for localized prostate cancer: lesion detection and staging. Biomed Res Int 2014:684127. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/684127

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Gawlitza J, Reiss-Zimmermann M, Thormer G, Schaudinn A, Linder N, Garnov N, Horn LC, Minh DH, Ganzer R, Stolzenburg JU, Kahn T, Moche M, Busse H (2017) Impact of the use of an endorectal coil for 3 T prostate MRI on image quality and cancer detection rate. Sci Rep 7:40640. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40640

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Shah ZK, Elias SN, Abaza R, Zynger DL, DeRenne LA, Knopp MV, Guo B, Schurr R, Heymsfield SB, Jia G (2015) Performance comparison of 1.5-T endorectal coil MRI with 3.0-T nonendorectal coil MRI in patients with prostate cancer. Acad Radiol 22(4):467–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2014.11.007

  16. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, Tempany CM, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Margolis DJ, Thoeny HC, Verma S, Barentsz J, Weinreb JC (2019) Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol 76(3):340–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kumar V, Bora GS, Kumar R, Jagannathan NR (2018) Multiparametric (mp) MRI of prostate cancer. Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc 105:23–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnmrs.2018.01.001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. White S, Hricak H, Forstner R, Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron DB, Zaloudek CJ, Weiss JM, Narayan P, Carroll PR (1995) Prostate cancer: effect of postbiopsy hemorrhage on interpretation of MR images. Radiology 195(2):385–390. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.195.2.7724756

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mussi TC, Baroni RH, Zagoria RJ, Westphalen AC (2019) Prostate magnetic resonance imaging technique. Abdom Radiol (NY). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02308-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Futterer JJ (2017) Multiparametric MRI in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Korean J Radiol 18(4):597–606. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2017.18.4.597

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Hricak H (1999) Imaging prostate cancer. J Urol 162(4):1329–1330. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(05)68278-x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Metens T, Miranda D, Absil J, Matos C (2012) What is the optimal b value in diffusion-weighted MR imaging to depict prostate cancer at 3T? Eur Radiol 22(3):703–709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2298-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wang X, Qian Y, Liu B, Cao L, Fan Y, Zhang JJ, Yu Y (2014) High-b-value diffusion-weighted MRI for the detection of prostate cancer at 3 T. Clin Radiol 69(11):1165–1170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2014.07.013

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Scheenen T, Barentsz JO (2011) Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 259(2):453–461. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11091409

  25. Verma S, Turkbey B, Muradyan N, Rajesh A, Cornud F, Haider MA, Choyke PL, Harisinghani M (2012) Overview of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in prostate cancer diagnosis and management. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198(6):1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.8510

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Rais-Bahrami S, Siddiqui MM, Vourganti S, Turkbey B, Rastinehad AR, Stamatakis L, Truong H, Walton-Diaz A, Hoang AN, Nix JW, Merino MJ, Wood BJ, Simon RM, Choyke PL, Pinto PA (2015) Diagnostic value of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an adjunct to prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based detection of prostate cancer in men without prior biopsies. BJU Int 115(3):381–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12639

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kuhl CK, Bruhn R, Kramer N, Nebelung S, Heidenreich A, Schrading S (2017) Abbreviated biparametric prostate MR imaging in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen. Radiology 285(2):493–505. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017170129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, Barentsz JO, Carey B, Futterer JJ, Heijmink SW, Hoskin P, Kirkham AP, Padhani AR, Persad R, Puech P, Punwani S, Sohaib A, Tombal B, Villers A, Emberton M (2013) Scoring systems used for the interpretation and reporting of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection, localization, and characterization: could standardization lead to improved utilization of imaging within the diagnostic pathway? J Magn Reson Imaging 37(1):48–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.23689

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, Rouviere O, Logager V, Futterer JJ, European Society of Urogenital R (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22(4):746–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y

  30. Hamoen EHJ, de Rooij M, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM (2015) Use of the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) for prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 67(6):1112–1121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Abd-Alazeez M, Ahmed HU, Arya M, Allen C, Dikaios N, Freeman A, Emberton M, Kirkham A (2014) Can multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging predict upgrading of transrectal ultrasound biopsy results at more definitive histology? Urol Oncol 32(6):741–747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.01.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Rosenkrantz AB, Kim S, Lim RP, Hindman N, Deng FM, Babb JS, Taneja SS (2013) Prostate cancer localization using multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) and Likert scales. Radiology 269(2):482–492. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13122233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, Margolis D, Schnall MD, Shtern F, Tempany CM, Thoeny HC, Verma S (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69(1):16–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hansford BG, Peng Y, Jiang Y, Vannier MW, Antic T, Thomas S, McCann S, Oto A (2015) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging curve-type analysis: Is it helpful in the differentiation of prostate cancer from healthy peripheral zone? Radiology 275(2):448–457. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14140847

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH (2017) Diagnostic performance of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 for detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 72(2):177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.01.042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Fascelli M, Rais-Bahrami S, Sankineni S, Brown AM, George AK, Ho R, Frye T, Kilchevsky A, Chelluri R, Abboud S, Siddiqui MM, Merino MJ, Wood BJ, Choyke PL, Pinto PA, Turkbey B (2016) Combined biparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen in the detection of prostate cancer: a validation study in a biopsy-naive patient population. Urology 88:125–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2015.09.035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, Collaco-Moraes Y, Ward K, Hindley RG, Freeman A, Kirkham AP, Oldroyd R, Parker C, Emberton M, Group Ps (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389(10071):815–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1

  38. Rosenkrantz AB, Ayoola A, Hoffman D, Khasgiwala A, Prabhu V, Smereka P, Somberg M, Taneja SS (2017) The learning curve in prostate MRI interpretation: self-directed learning versus continual reader feedback. AJR Am J Roentgenol 208(3):W92–W100. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.16876

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Wei CG, Zhang YY, Pan P, Chen T, Yu HC, Dai GC, Tu J, Yang S, Zhao WL, Shen J (2020) Diagnostic accuracy and inter-observer agreement of PI-RADS version 2 and version 2.1 for the detection of transition zone prostate cancers. AJR Am J Roentgenol. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.20.23883

  40. Venderink W, Bomers JG, Overduin CG, Padhani AR, de Lauw GR, Sedelaar MJ, Barentsz JO (2020) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: what urologists need to know. Part 3: targeted biopsy. Eur Urol 77(4):481–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.10.009

  41. Tafuri A, Ashrafi AN, Palmer S, Shakir A, Cacciamani GE, Iwata A, Iwata T, Cai J, Sali A, Gupta C, Medina LG, Stern MC, Duddalwar V, Aron M, Gill IS, Abreu A (2020) One-Stop MRI and MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy: an expedited pathway for prostate cancer diagnosis. World J Urol 38(4):949–956. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02835-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Pepe P, Aragona F (2013) Morbidity after transperineal prostate biopsy in 3000 patients undergoing 12 vs 18 vs more than 24 needle cores. Urology 81(6):1142–1146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.02.019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Drost FH, Osses D, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Roobol MJ, Schoots IG (2020) Prostate magnetic resonance imaging, with or without magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer: a cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 77(1):78–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.06.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. El-Shater Bosaily A, Parker C, Brown LC, Gabe R, Hindley RG, Kaplan R, Emberton M, Ahmed HU, Group P (2015) PROMIS–prostate MR imaging study: a paired validating cohort study evaluating the role of multi-parametric MRI in men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer. Contemp Clin Trials 42:26–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2015.02.008

  45. Ahmed HU, Hu Y, Carter T, Arumainayagam N, Lecornet E, Freeman A, Hawkes D, Barratt DC, Emberton M (2011) Characterizing clinically significant prostate cancer using template prostate mapping biopsy. J Urol 186(2):458–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.03.147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Bittner N, Merrick GS, Bennett A, Butler WM, Andreini HJ, Taubenslag W, Adamovich E (2015) Diagnostic performance of initial transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy of the prostate gland. Am J Clin Oncol 38(3):300–303. https://doi.org/10.1097/COC.0b013e31829a2954

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MG (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 68(3):438–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.037

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George AK, Rothwax J, Shakir N, Okoro C, Raskolnikov D, Parnes HL, Linehan WM, Merino MJ, Simon RM, Choyke PL, Wood BJ, Pinto PA (2015) Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 313(4):390–397. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.17942

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Porpiglia F, Manfredi M, Mele F, Cossu M, Bollito E, Veltri A, Cirillo S, Regge D, Faletti R, Passera R, Fiori C, De Luca S (2017) Diagnostic pathway with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging versus standard pathway: results from a randomized prospective study in biopsy-naive patients with suspected prostate cancer. Eur Urol 72(2):282–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.041

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, Briganti A, Budaus L, Hellawell G, Hindley RG, Roobol MJ, Eggener S, Ghei M, Villers A, Bladou F, Villeirs GM, Virdi J, Boxler S, Robert G, Singh PB, Venderink W, Hadaschik BA, Ruffion A, Hu JC, Margolis D, Crouzet S, Klotz L, Taneja SS, Pinto P, Gill I, Allen C, Giganti F, Freeman A, Morris S, Punwani S, Williams NR, Brew-Graves C, Deeks J, Takwoingi Y, Emberton M, Moore CM, Collaborators PSG (2018) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 378(19):1767–1777. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993

  51. Rouviere O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, Claudon M, Roy C, Mege-Lechevallier F, Decaussin-Petrucci M, Dubreuil-Chambardel M, Magaud L, Remontet L, Ruffion A, Colombel M, Crouzet S, Schott AM, Lemaitre L, Rabilloud M, Grenier N, Investigators M-F (2019) Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 20(1):100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israel B, Hendriks R, Padhani AR, Hoogenboom M, Zamecnik P, Bakker D, Setiasti AY, Veltman J, van den Hout H, van der Lelij H, van Oort I, Klaver S, Debruyne F, Sedelaar M, Hannink G, Rovers M, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, Barentsz JO (2019) Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naive men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol 75(4):570–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Schoots IG (2018) MRI in early prostate cancer detection: how to manage indeterminate or equivocal PI-RADS 3 lesions? Transl Androl Urol 7(1):70–82. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2017.12.31

  54. Watson MJ, George AK, Maruf M, Frye TP, Muthigi A, Kongnyuy M, Valayil SG, Pinto PA (2016) Risk stratification of prostate cancer: integrating multiparametric MRI, nomograms and biomarkers. Future Oncol 12(21):2417–2430. https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2016-0178

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Sidana A, Watson MJ, George AK, Rastinehad AR, Vourganti S, Rais-Bahrami S, Muthigi A, Maruf M, Gordetsky JB, Nix JW, Merino MJ, Turkbey B, Choyke PL, Wood BJ, Pinto PA (2018) Fusion prostate biopsy outperforms 12-core systematic prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative systematic biopsy: a multi-institutional analysis. Urol Oncol 36 (7):341 e341–341 e347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.04.002

  56. Bokhorst LP, Zhu X, Bul M, Bangma CH, Schroder FH, Roobol MJ (2012) Positive predictive value of prostate biopsy indicated by prostate-specific-antigen-based prostate cancer screening: trends over time in a European randomized trial*. BJU Int 110(11):1654–1660. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11481.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Cormio L, Scattoni V, Lorusso F, Perrone A, Di Fino G, Selvaggio O, Sanguedolce F, Bufo P, Montorsi F, Carrieri G (2014) Prostate cancer detection rates in different biopsy schemes. Which cores for which patients? World J Urol 32(2):341–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-012-0989-8

  58. Abraham NE, Mendhiratta N, Taneja SS (2015) Patterns of repeat prostate biopsy in contemporary clinical practice. J Urol 193(4):1178–1184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.10.084

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Simmons LAM, Kanthabalan A, Arya M, Briggs T, Barratt D, Charman SC, Freeman A, Gelister J, Hawkes D, Hu Y, Jameson C, McCartan N, Moore CM, Punwani S, Ramachandran N, van der Meulen J, Emberton M, Ahmed HU (2017) The PICTURE study: diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI in men requiring a repeat prostate biopsy. Br J Cancer 116(9):1159–1165. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2017.57

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Rosenkrantz AB, Verma S, Choyke P, Eberhardt SC, Eggener SE, Gaitonde K, Haider MA, Margolis DJ, Marks LS, Pinto P, Sonn GA, Taneja SS (2016) Prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a prior negative biopsy: a consensus statement by AUA and SAR. J Urol 196(6):1613–1618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.079

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Auffenberg GB, Lane BR, Linsell S, Brachulis A, Ye Z, Rakic N, Montie J, Miller DC, Cher ML (2017) A roadmap for improving the management of favorable risk prostate cancer. J Urol 198(6):1220–1222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.07.085

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Dieffenbacher S, Nyarangi-Dix J, Giganti F, Bonekamp D, Kesch C, Muller-Wolf MB, Schutz V, Gasch C, Hatiboglu G, Hauffe M, Stenzinger A, Duensing S, Schlemmer HP, Moore CM, Hohenfellner M, Radtke JP (2019) Standardized magnetic resonance imaging reporting using the prostate cancer radiological estimation of change in sequential evaluation criteria and magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion with transperineal saturation biopsy to select men on active surveillance. Eur Urol Focus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2019.03.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Da Rosa MR, Milot L, Sugar L, Vesprini D, Chung H, Loblaw A, Pond GR, Klotz L, Haider MA (2015) A prospective comparison of MRI-US fused targeted biopsy versus systematic ultrasound-guided biopsy for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in patients on active surveillance. J Magn Reson Imaging 41(1):220–225. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24710

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Kaye DR, Qi J, Morgan TM, Linsell S, Ginsburg KB, Lane BR, Montie JE, Cher ML, Miller DC, Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement C (2019) Pathological upgrading at radical prostatectomy for patients with Grade Group 1 prostate cancer: implications of confirmatory testing for patients considering active surveillance. BJU Int 123(5):846–853. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14554

  65. Klotz L, Loblaw A, Sugar L, Moussa M, Berman DM, Van der Kwast T, Vesprini D, Milot L, Kebabdjian M, Fleshner N, Ghai S, Chin J, Pond GR, Haider M (2019) Active surveillance magnetic resonance imaging study (ASIST): results of a randomized multicenter prospective trial. Eur Urol 75(2):300–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.06.025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Klotz L, Pond G, Loblaw A, Sugar L, Moussa M, Berman D, Van der Kwast T, Vesprini D, Milot L, Kebabdjian M, Fleshner N, Ghai S, Chin J, Haider M (2019) Randomized study of systematic biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging and targeted and systematic biopsy in men on active surveillance (ASIST): 2-year postbiopsy follow-up. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.10.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Karavitakis M, Winkler M, Abel P, Livni N, Beckley I, Ahmed HU (2011) Histological characteristics of the index lesion in whole-mount radical prostatectomy specimens: implications for focal therapy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 14(1):46–52. https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2010.16

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Crawford ED, Barqawi A (2007) Targeted focal therapy: a minimally invasive ablation technique for early prostate cancer. Oncology (Williston Park) 21(1):27–32 (discussion 33–24, 39)

  69. Valerio M, Ahmed HU, Emberton M, Lawrentschuk N, Lazzeri M, Montironi R, Nguyen PL, Trachtenberg J, Polascik TJ (2014) The role of focal therapy in the management of localised prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 66(4):732–751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.048

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Isebaert S, Van den Bergh L, Haustermans K, Joniau S, Lerut E, De Wever L, De Keyzer F, Budiharto T, Slagmolen P, Van Poppel H, Oyen R (2013) Multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer localization in correlation to whole-mount histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging 37(6):1392–1401. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.23938

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Langley S, Ahmed HU, Al-Qaisieh B, Bostwick D, Dickinson L, Veiga FG, Grimm P, Machtens S, Guedea F, Emberton M (2012) Report of a consensus meeting on focal low dose rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer. BJU Int 109(Suppl 1):7–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10825.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Orczyk C, Rosenkrantz AB, Mikheev A, Villers A, Bernaudin M, Taneja SS, Valable S, Rusinek H (2017) 3D Registration of mpMRI for assessment of prostate cancer focal therapy. Acad Radiol 24(12):1544–1555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2017.06.010

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Woodrum DA, Kawashima A, Gorny KR, Mynderse LA (2017) Prostate cancer: state of the art imaging and focal treatment. Clin Radiol 72(8):665–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2017.02.010

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. de Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM (2016) Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for local staging of prostate cancer: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 70(2):233–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Rud E, Baco E, Klotz D, Rennesund K, Svindland A, Berge V, Lundeby E, Wessel N, Hoff JR, Berg RE, Diep L, Eggesbo HB, Eri LM (2015) Does preoperative magnetic resonance imaging reduce the rate of positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy in a randomised clinical trial? Eur Urol 68(3):487–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.02.039

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Kozikowski M, Malewski W, Michalak W, Dobruch J (2019) Clinical utility of MRI in the decision-making process before radical prostatectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 14(1):e0210194. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210194

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Ho R, Siddiqui MM, George AK, Frye T, Kilchevsky A, Fascelli M, Shakir NA, Chelluri R, Abboud SF, Walton-Diaz A, Sankineni S, Merino MJ, Turkbey B, Choyke PL, Wood BJ, Pinto PA (2016) Preoperative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging predicts biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. PLoS ONE 11(6):e0157313. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157313

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Babaian RJ, Troncoso P, Bhadkamkar VA, Johnston DA (2001) Analysis of clinicopathologic factors predicting outcome after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 91(8):1414–1422

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Patel P, Mathew MS, Trilisky I, Oto A (2018) Multiparametric MR imaging of the prostate after treatment of prostate cancer. Radiographics 38(2):437–449. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2018170147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Gaur S, Turkbey B (2018) Prostate MR imaging for posttreatment evaluation and recurrence. Urol Clin North Am 45(3):467–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2018.03.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Cha D, Kim CK, Park SY, Park JJ, Park BK (2015) Evaluation of suspected soft tissue lesion in the prostate bed after radical prostatectomy using 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 33(4):407–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2014.12.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Barret E, Harvey-Bryan KA, Sanchez-Salas R, Rozet F, Galiano M, Cathelineau X (2014) How to diagnose and treat focal therapy failure and recurrence? Curr Opin Urol 24(3):241–246. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000052

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Wegelin O, Exterkate L, van der Leest M, Kummer JA, Vreuls W, de Bruin PC, Bosch J, Barentsz JO, Somford DM, van Melick HHE (2019) The FUTURE Trial: a multicenter randomised controlled trial on target biopsy techniques based on magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol 75(4):582–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.040

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Truong M, Wang B, Gordetsky JB, Nix JW, Frye TP, Messing EM, Thomas JV, Feng C, Rais-Bahrami S (2018) Multi-institutional nomogram predicting benign prostate pathology on magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion biopsy in men with a prior negative 12-core systematic biopsy. Cancer 124(2):278–285. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.31051

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Tran GN, Leapman MS, Nguyen HG, Cowan JE, Shinohara K, Westphalen AC, Carroll PR (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy during prostate cancer active surveillance. Eur Urol 72(2):275–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Jayadevan R, Felker ER, Kwan L, Barsa DE, Zhang H, Sisk AE, Delfin M, Marks LS (2019) Magnetic resonance imaging-guided confirmatory biopsy for initiating active surveillance of prostate cancer. JAMA Netw Open 2(9):e1911019. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.11019

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Frye TP, George AK, Kilchevsky A, Maruf M, Siddiqui MM, Kongnyuy M, Muthigi A, Han H, Parnes HL, Merino M, Choyke PL, Turkbey B, Wood B, Pinto PA (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound guided fusion biopsy to detect progression in patients with existing lesions on active surveillance for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer. J Urol 197(3 Pt 1):640–646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.08.109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Ahdoot M, Wilbur AR, Reese SE, Lebastchi AH, Mehralivand S, Gomella PT, Bloom J, Gurram S, Siddiqui M, Pinsky P, Parnes H, Linehan WM, Merino M, Choyke PL, Shih JH, Turkbey B, Wood BJ, Pinto PA (2020) MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 382(10):917–928. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1910038

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Mark Emberton receives research support from the United Kingdom’s National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) UCLH / UCL Biomedical Research Centre.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, E-Da Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

    Richard C. Wu

  2. College of Medicine, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

    Richard C. Wu

  3. Department of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Amir H. Lebastchi

  4. University Hospital Heidelberg and German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany

    Boris A. Hadaschik

  5. Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK

    Mark Emberton & Caroline Moore

  6. Department of Urology, Medipol University Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    Pilar Laguna

  7. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Jurgen J. Fütterer

  8. Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Arvin K. George

Authors
  1. Richard C. Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amir H. Lebastchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Boris A. Hadaschik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mark Emberton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Caroline Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Pilar Laguna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jurgen J. Fütterer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Arvin K. George
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arvin K. George.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Boris A. Hadaschik reports personal fees from ABX, Bayer, Lightpoint Medical, Inc., Janssen R&D, Bristol-Myers-Squibb and Astellas and travel from AstraZeneca, Janssen R&D and Astellas.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wu, R.C., Lebastchi, A.H., Hadaschik, B.A. et al. Role of MRI for the detection of prostate cancer. World J Urol 39, 637–649 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03530-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03530-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation