Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Correlation between dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and quantitative histopathologic microvascular parameters in organ-confined prostate cancer

  • Urogenital
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To correlate pharmacokinetic parameters of 3-T dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE-)MRI with histopathologic microvascular and lymphatic parameters in organ-confined prostate cancer.

Methods

In 18 patients with unilateral peripheral zone (pT2a) tumours who underwent DCE-MRI prior to radical prostatectomy (RP), the following pharmacokinetic parameters were assessed: permeability surface area volume transfer constant (K trans), extravascular extracellular volume (Ve) and rate constant (K ep). In the RP sections blood and lymph vessels were visualised immunohistochemically and automatically examined and analysed. Parameters assessed included microvessel density (MVD), area (MVA) and perimeter (MVP) as well as lymph vessel density (LVD), area (LVA) and perimeter (LVP).

Results

A negative correlation was found between age and K trans and K ep for tumour (r = −0.60, p = 0.009; r = −0.67, p = 0.002) and normal (r = −0.54, p = 0.021; r = −0.46, p = 0.055) tissue. No correlation existed between absolute values of microvascular parameters from histopathology and DCE-MRI. In contrast, the ratio between tumour and normal tissue (correcting for individual microvascularity variations) significantly correlated between K ep and MVD (r = 0.61, p = 0.007) and MVP (r = 0.54, p = 0.022). The lymphovascular parameters showed only a correlation between LVA and K ep (r = −0.66, p = 0.003).

Conclusions

Significant correlations between DCE-MRI and histopathologic parameters were found when correcting for interpatient variations in microvascularity.

Key Points

• Normal prostate tissue shows strong heterogeneity in microvascularity.

• Peripheral zone prostate cancer shows increased and less heterogeneous microvascularity.

• Normal and tumour tissue shows considerable variation in microvascularity between patients.

• DCE-MRI should take into account the interprostatic heterogeneity of microvasculature between patients.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

DCE-MRI:

dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging

H&E:

haematoxylin and eosin

K ep :

rate constant

K trans :

permeability surface area volume transfer constant

LVA:

lymph vessel area

LVD:

lymph vessel density

LVP:

lymph vessel perimeter

MVA:

microvessel area

MVD:

microvessel density

MVP:

microvessel perimeter

PSA:

prostate-specific antigen

PZ:

peripheral zone

RP:

radical prostatectomy

TZ:

transition zone

Ve:

extravascular extracellular volume

References

  1. Fine SW, Epstein JI (2008) A contemporary study correlating prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason score. J Urol 179:1335–1338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22:746–757

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Baur AD, Maxeiner A, Franiel T et al (2014) Evaluation of the prostate imaging reporting and data system for the detection of prostate cancer by the results of targeted biopsy of the prostate. Invest Radiol 49:411–420

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Anastasiadis AG, Lichy MP, Nagele U et al (2006) MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate increases diagnostic performance in men with elevated or increasing PSA levels after previous negative TRUS biopsies. Eur Urol 50:738–748

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Hoeks C et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. J Urol 183:520–527

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bigler SA, Deering RE, Brawer MK (1993) Comparison of microscopic vascularity in benign and malignant prostate tissue. Hum Pathol 24:220–226

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pallares J, Rojo F, Iriarte J, Morote J, Armadans LI, de Torres I (2006) Study of microvessel density and the expression of the angiogenic factors VEGF, bFGF and the receptors Flt-1 and FLK-1 in benign, premalignant and malignant prostate tissues. Histol Histopathol 21:857–865

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. van Niekerk CG, van der Laak JA, Borger ME et al (2009) Computerized whole slide quantification shows increased microvascular density in pT2 prostate cancer as compared to normal prostate tissue. Prostate 69:62–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dvorak HF, Nagy JA, Feng D, Brown LF, Dvorak AM (1999) Vascular permeability factor/vascular endothelial growth factor and the significance of microvascular hyperpermeability in angiogenesis. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 237:97–132

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Puech P, Potiron E, Lemaitre L et al (2009) Dynamic contrast-enhanced-magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of intraprostatic prostate cancer: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 74:1094–1099

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Yakar D, Hambrock T, Huisman H et al (2010) Feasibility of 3 T dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in localizing local recurrence of prostate cancer after external beam radiation therapy. Invest Radiol 45:121–125

  12. van Niekerk CG, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Barentsz JO, Witjes JA, van der Laak JA (2011) Quantitative analysis of lymph vessel characteristics in organ confined prostate cancer. Prostate 71:91–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Brix G, Semmler W, Port R, Schad LR, Layer G, Lorenz WJ (1991) Pharmacokinetic parameters in CNS Gd-DTPA enhanced MR imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 15:621–628

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL et al (1999) Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusible tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging 10:223–232

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Vos PC, Hambrock T, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Futterer JJ, Barentsz JO, Huisman HJ (2008) Computerized analysis of prostate lesions in the peripheral zone using dynamic contrast enhanced MRI. Med Phys 35:888–899

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. van Oort I, Bruins HM, Kiemeney LA, Knipscheer BC, Witjes JA, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA (2010) The length of positive surgical margins correlates with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Histopathology 56:464–471

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL, Grading Committee ISUP (2005) The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29:1228–1242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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 259:453–461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Vos PC, Hambrock T, Barenstz JO, Huisman HJ (2009) Automated calibration for computerized analysis of prostate lesions using pharmacokinetic magnetic resonance images. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 12:836–843

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hambrock T, Vos PC, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Barentsz JO, Huisman HJ (2013) Prostate cancer: computer-aided diagnosis with multiparametric 3-T MR imaging–effect on observer performance. Radiology 266:521–530

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hlatky L, Hahnfeldt P, Folkman J (2002) Clinical application of antiangiogenic therapy: microvessel density, what it does and doesn’t tell us. J Natl Cancer Inst 94:883–893

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Franiel T, Hamm B, Hricak H (2011) Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and pharmacokinetic models in prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 21:616–626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schlemmer HP, Merkle J, Grobholz R et al (2004) Can pre-operative contrast-enhanced dynamic MR imaging for prostate cancer predict microvessel density in prostatectomy specimens? Eur Radiol 14:309–317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Franiel T, Ludemann L, Rudolph B et al (2009) Prostate MR imaging: tissue characterization with pharmacokinetic volume and blood flow parameters and correlation with histologic parameters. Radiology 252:101–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bostwick DG, Grignon DJ, Hammond ME et al (2000) Prognostic factors in prostate cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med 124:995–1000

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rosenkrantz AB, Sabach A, Babb JS et al (2013) Prostate cancer: comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI techniques for localisation of peripheral zone tumor. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:W471–W478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Burton JB, Priceman SJ, Sung JL et al (2008) Suppression of prostate cancer nodal and systemic metastasis by blockade of the lymphangiogenic axis. Cancer Res 68:7828–7837

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Christina Hulsbergen-van de Kaa. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. This study has received funding from the Dutch Cancer Foundation (KWF), contract grant number KUN 2003 2529. One of the authors, Jeroen van der Laak, has significant statistical expertise. Institutional review board approval was not required because no experimental design involved animals or humans. Written informed consent was waived by the institutional review board. Some study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported by van Niekerk CG et al. (Prostate 71:91–97, 2011).

Methodology: retrospective, observational, performed at one institution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Cornelis G. van Niekerk, Jeroen A. W. M. van der Laak & Christina A. Hulsbergen-van de Kaa

  2. Department of Radiology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Thomas Hambrock, Henk-Jan Huisman & Jelle O. Barentsz

  3. Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    J. Alfred Witjes

Authors
  1. Cornelis G. van Niekerk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeroen A. W. M. van der Laak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas Hambrock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Henk-Jan Huisman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. Alfred Witjes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jelle O. Barentsz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Christina A. Hulsbergen-van de Kaa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christina A. Hulsbergen-van de Kaa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van Niekerk, C.G., van der Laak, J.A.W.M., Hambrock, T. et al. Correlation between dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and quantitative histopathologic microvascular parameters in organ-confined prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 24, 2597–2605 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3301-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3301-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation