Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Update on the ICUD-SIU consultation on multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging in localised prostate cancer

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

Abstract

Introduction

Prostate cancer (PCa) imaging is a rapidly evolving field. Dramatic improvements in prostate MRI during the last decade will probably change the accuracy of diagnosis. This chapter reviews recent current evidence about MRI diagnostic performance and impact on PCa management.

Materials and methods

The International Consultation on Urological Diseases nominated a committee to review the literature on prostate MRI. A search of the PubMed database was conducted to identify articles focussed on MP-MRI detection and staging protocols, reporting and scoring systems, the role of MP-MRI in diagnosing PCa prior to biopsy, in active surveillance, in focal therapy and in detecting local recurrence after treatment.

Results

Differences in opinion were reported in the use of the strength of magnets [1.5 Tesla (T) vs. 3T] and coils. More agreement was found regarding the choice of pulse sequences; diffusion-weighted MRI (DW-MRI), dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE MRI), and/or MR spectroscopy imaging (MRSI) are recommended in addition to conventional T2-weighted anatomical sequences. In 2015, the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS version 2) was described to standardize image acquisition and interpretation. MP-MRI improves detection of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) in the repeat biopsy setting or before the confirmatory biopsy in patients considering active surveillance. It is useful to guide focal treatment and to detect local recurrences after treatment. Its role in biopsy-naive patients or during the course of active surveillance remains debated.

Conclusion

MP-MRI is increasingly used to improve detection of csPCa and for the selection of a suitable therapeutic approach.

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.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Leake JL, Hardman R, Ojili V et al (2014) Prostate MRI: access to and current practice of prostate MRI in the United States. J Am Coll Radiol 11(2):156–160

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22(4):746–757

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 69(1):16–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Turkbey B, Merino M, Gallardo E et al (2014) Comparison of endorectal coil and nonendorectal coil T2W and diffusion-weighted MRI at 3 Tesla for localizing prostate cancer: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging 39(6):1443–1448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Somford D, Hamoen E, Fütterer J et al (2013) The predictive value of endorectal 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for extraprostatic extension in patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. J Urol 190(5):1728–1734

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Park B, Kim B, Kim C et al (2007) Comparison of phased-array 3.0-T and endorectal 1.5-T magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of local staging accuracy for prostate cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr 31(4):534–538

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Heijmink S, Fütterer J, Hambrock T et al (2007) Prostate cancer: body-array versus endorectal coil MR imaging at 3 T—comparison of image quality, localization, and staging performance. Radiology 244(1):184–195

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Turkbey B, Mani H, Shah V et al (2011) Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. J Urol 186(5):1818–1824

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Renard-Penna R, Rouprêt M, Comperat E et al (2013) Accuracy of high resolution (1.5 Tesla) pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in staging prostate cancer in candidates for radical prostatectomy: results from a prospective study. Urol Oncol 31(4):448–454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Weinreb J, Blume J, Coakley F et al (2009) Prostate cancer: sextant localization at MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging before prostatectomy—results of ACRIN prospective multi-institutional clinicopathologic study. Radiology 251(1):122–133

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Puech P, Villers A, Ouzzane A et al (2014) Prostate cancer: diagnosis, parametric imaging and standardized report. Diagn Interv Imaging 95(7–8):743–752

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C et al (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 59(4):477–494

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Renard-Penna R, Mozer P, Cornud F et al (2015) Prostate imaging reporting and data system and likert scoring system: multiparametric MR imaging validation study to screen patients for initial biopsy. Radiology 275(2):458–468

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Vaché T, Bratan F, Mège-Lechevallier F et al (2014) Characterization of prostate lesions as benign or malignant at multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of three scoring systems in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. Radiology 272(2):446–455

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY et al (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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C et al (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 59:477–494

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Franiel T, Lüdermann L, Taupitz M et al (2009) Pharmacokinetic MRI of the prostate: parameters for differentiating low-grade and high-grade prostate cancer. Rofo 181:536–542

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Moore CM, Robertson NL, Arsanious N et al (2013) Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. Eur Urol 63:125–140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D et al (2014) 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Sciarra A et al (2015) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging vs. standard care in men being evaluated for prostate cancer: a randomized study. Urol Oncol 33(1):17.e1–17.e7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Baco E, Rud E, Eri LM et al (2016) A randomized controlled trial to assess and compare the outcomes of two-core prostate biopsy guided by fused magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound images and traditional 12-core systematic biopsy. Eur Urol 69(1):149–156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Abdi H, Pourmalek F, Zargar H et al (2015) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging enhances detection of significant tumor in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Urology 85(2):423–428

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bratan F, Melodelima C, Souchon R et al (2015) How accurate is multiparametric MR imaging in evaluation of prostate cancer volume? Radiology 275:144–154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Le Nobin J, Rosenkrantz AB, Villers A et al (2015) Image guided focal therapy for magnetic resonance imaging visible prostate cancer: defining a 3-dimensional treatment margin based on magnetic resonance imaging histology co-registration analysis. J Urol 194(2):364–370

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Anwar M, Westphalen AC, Jung AJ et al (2014) Role of endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging in defining treatable intraprostatic tumor foci in prostate cancer: quantitative analysis of imaging contour compared to whole-mount histopathology. Radiother Oncol 110(2):303–308

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Ouzzane A, Helfrich O, Le Nobin J (2015) Understanding the pathological implications of MRI: application to focal therapy planning. Curr Opin Urol 25(3):198–204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Larson BT, Collins JM, Huidobro C et al (2003) Gadolinium-enhanced MRI in the evaluation of minimally invasive treatments of the prostate: correlation with histopathologic findings. Urology 62(5):900–904

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Rouviere O, Lyonnet D, Raudrant A et al (2001) MRI appearance of prostate following transrectal HIFU ablation of localized cancer. Eur Urol 40(3):265–274

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Vellet AD, Saliken J, Donnelly B et al (1997) Prostatic cryosurgery: use of MR imaging in evaluation of success and technical modifications. Radiology 203(3):653–659

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kulik M, Nedelcu C, Martin F et al (2014) Post-treatment MRI aspects of photodynamic therapy for prostate cancer. Insights Imaging 5(6):697–713

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Cirillo S, Petracchini M, Scotti L et al (2009) Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 Tesla to assess local recurrence following radical prostatectomy using T2-weighted and contrast-enhanced imaging. Eur Radiol 19(3):761–769

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sella T, Schwartz LH, Swindle PW et al (2004) Suspected local recurrence after radical prostatectomy: endorectal coil MR imaging. Radiology 231(2):379–385

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Boonsirikamchai P, Kaur H, Kuban DA et al (2012) Use of maximum slope images generated from dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI to detect locally recurrent prostate carcinoma after prostatectomy: a practical approach. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198(3):w228–w236

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Arrayeh E, Westphalen AC, Kurhanewicz J et al (2012) Does local recurrence of prostate cancer after radiation therapy occur at the site of primary tumor? Results of a longitudinal MRI and MRSI study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82(5):e787–e793

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Rouviere O, Valette O, Grivolat S et al (2004) Recurrent prostate cancer after external beam radiotherapy: value of contrast-enhanced dynamic MRI in localizing intraprostatic tumor -correlation with biopsy findings. Urology 63(5):922–927

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y, Hiratsuka J et al (2011) Locally recurrent prostate cancer after high-dose-rate brachytherapy: the value of diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, and T2-weighted imaging in localizing tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197(2):408–414

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Rouviere O, Girouin N, Glas L et al (2010) Prostate cancer transrectal HIFU ablation: detection of local recurrences using T2-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Eur Radiol 20(1):48–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Donnelly SE, Donnelly BJ, Saliken JC et al (2004) Prostate cancer: gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging at 3 weeks compared with needle biopsy at 6 months after cryoablation. Radiology 232(3):830–833

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Institut Montsouris, Paris, France

    Eric Barret

  2. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Baris Turkbey

  3. Department of Radiology, CHU Lille, University of Lille, Lille, France

    Philippe Puech

  4. Department of Urology, CHU Nice, Nice, France

    Matthieu Durand

  5. Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Valeria Panebianco

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

    Jurgen J. Fütterer

  7. Academic Department of Radiology, Hopital Tenon—Hopital Pitié-Salpétrière, AP-HP, UPMC Univ Paris 06, Paris, France

    Raphaële Renard-Penna

  8. Department of Urinary and Vascular Imaging, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, University Lyon 1, Lyon, France

    Olivier Rouvière

Authors
  1. Eric Barret
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Baris Turkbey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Philippe Puech
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthieu Durand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Valeria Panebianco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jurgen J. Fütterer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Raphaële Renard-Penna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Olivier Rouvière
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

EB: project development, data collection, manuscript writing. BT: manuscript writing. PP: manuscript writing, MD: manuscript writing, VP: manuscript writing, JJF: manuscript writing. RR-P: manuscript writing, OR: project development, data collection, manuscript writing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric Barret.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barret, E., Turkbey, B., Puech, P. et al. Update on the ICUD-SIU consultation on multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging in localised prostate cancer. World J Urol 37, 429–436 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2395-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2395-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation