Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What the Urologist Wants to Know from Prostate MRI

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Prostate MRI Essentials

Abstract

The role of multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer (PCa) has evolved rapidly over the previous decade. At present, it includes the following indications: prior negative biopsies with ongoing clinical concern for underlying malignancy, presurgical planning, active surveillance, and local recurrence after prostatectomy. In this review, we will begin by discussing the role of mpMRI at time of initial diagnosis, both in the biopsy-naive and prior biopsy setting. We will discuss its use in active surveillance (AS), both in confirmatory biopsy and ongoing surveillance. Finally, we will review the role prior to local (or surgical) therapy of known PCa.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Crawford ED, DeAntoni EP, Etzioni R, Schaefer VC, Olson RM, Ross CA. Serum prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination for early detection of prostate cancer in a national community-based program. The Prostate Cancer Education Council. Urology. 1996;47(6):863–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Catalona WJ, Partin AW, Slawin KM, Brawer MK, Flanigan RC, Patel A, et al. Use of the percentage of free prostate-specific antigen to enhance differentiation of prostate cancer from benign prostatic disease: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. JAMA. 1998;279:1542–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Schröder FH, van der Maas P, Beemsterboer P, Kruger AB, Hoedemaeker R, Rietbergen J, et al. Evaluation of the digital rectal examination as a screening test for prostate cancer. Rotterdam section of the European randomized study of screening for prostate Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:1817–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS, Parnes HL, et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2239–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Andriole GL, Levin DL, Crawford ED, Gelmann EP, Pinsky PF, Chia D, et al. Prostate cancer screening in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial: findings from the initial screening round of a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:433–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Shinohara K, Nguyen H, Masic S. Management of an increasing prostate-specific antigen level after negative prostate biopsy. Urol Clin North Am. 2014;41(2):327–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Crawford ED, Rove KO, Barqawi AB, Maroni PD, Werahera PN, Baer CA, et al. Clinical-pathologic correlation between transperineal mapping biopsies of the prostate and three-dimensional reconstruction of prostatectomy specimens. Prostate. 2013;73(7):778–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tontilla PP, Lantto J, Paakko E, Piippo U, Kauppila S, Lammentausta E, et al. Prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis in biopsy-naïve men suspected prostate cancer based on elevated prostate-specific antigen values: results from a randomized prospective blinded controlled trial. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):419–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gaunay G, Patel V, Shah P, Moreira D, Hall SJ, Vira MA, et al. Role of multi-parametric MRI of the prostate for screening and staging: experience with over 1500 cases. Asian J Urol. 2017;4(1):68–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George AK, Rothwax J, Shakir N, et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA. 2015;313(4):390–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(19):1767–77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Wysock JS, Mendhiratta N, Zattoni F, Meng X, Bjurlin M, Huang WC, et al. Predictive value of negative 3T multi-parametric prostate MRI on 12 core biopsy results. BJU Int. 2016;118(4):515–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Elkhoury FF, Felker ER, Kwan L, Sisk AE, Delfin M, Natarajan S, et al. Comparison of targeted vs systematic prostate biopsy in men who are biopsy naïve. JAMA Surg. 2019;1734:E1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Mendhiratta N, Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, Wysock JS, Fenstermaker M, Huang R, et al. Prebiopsy MRI and MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy in men with previous negative biopsies: impact on repeat biopsy strategies. Urology. 2015;86(6):1192–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sonn GA, Chang E, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, Macairan M, Lieu P, et al. Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Eur Urol. 2014;65(4):809.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ploussard G, Salomon L, Xylinas E, Allory Y, Vordos D, Hoznek A, et al. Pathological findings and prostate-specific antigen outcomes after radical prostatectomy in men eligible for active surveillance: does the risk of misclassification vary according to biopsy criteria? J Urol. 2010;183(2):539–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F, Bokhorst LP, Rannikko A, Klotz L, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2015;67:627–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Moore CM, Ridout A, Emberton M. The role of MRI in active surveillance of prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol. 2013;23:261–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Abd-Alazeez M, Ahmed HU, Arya M, Allen C, Dikaios N, Freeman A, et al. Can multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging predict upgrading of transrectal ultrasound biopsy results at more definitive histology? Urol Oncol. 2014;32:741–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Vargas HA, Akin O, Afaq A, Goldman D, Zheng J, Moskowitz CS, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of clinically low risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2012;188:1732–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Marliere F, Puech P, Benkirane A, Villers A, Lemaitre L, Leroy X, et al. The role of MRI-targeted and confirmatory biopsies for cancer upstaging at selection in patients considered for active surveillance for clinically low-risk prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2014;32:951–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hoeks CM, Somford DM, van Oort IM, Vergunst H, Oddens JR, Smits GA, et al. Value of 3-T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance guided biopsy for early risk restratification in active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer: a prospective multicenter cohort study. Investig Radiol. 2014;49:165–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Barrett T, Haider MA. The emerging role of MRI in prostate cancer active surveillance on ongoing challenges. Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(1):131–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hambrock T, Hoeks C, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, Scheenen T, Futterer J, Bouwense S, et al. Prospective assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using 3-T diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies versus a systematic 10-core transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy cohort. Eur Urol. 2012;61:177–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bekelman JE, Rumble RB, Chen RC, Pisansky TM, Finelli A, Feifer A, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: ASCO clinical practice guideline endorsement of an American Urological Association/American Society for Radiation Oncology/Society of Urologic Oncology Guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(32):3251–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mohler JL, Antonarakis ES, Armstrong AJ, D'Amico AV, Davis BJ, Dorff T, et al. Prostate cancer, version 2.2019, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2019;17(5):479–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Michalski J, Sandler HM, Northouse L, Hembroff L, et al. Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(12):1250–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71(4):618–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Choi WW, Williams SB, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, Nguyen PL, Hu JC. Overuse of imaging for staging low risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2011;185(5):1645–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Cooperberg MR, Lubeck DP, Grossfeld GD, Mehta SS, Carroll PR. Contemporary trends in imaging test utilization for prostate cancer staging: data from the cancer of the prostate strategic urologic research endeavor. J Urol. 2002;168(2):491–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Makarov DV, Desai RA, Yu JB, Sharma R, Abraham N, Albertsen PC, et al. The population level prevalence and correlates of appropriate and inappropriate imaging to stage incident prostate cancer in the medicare population. J Urol. 2012;187(1):97–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. American Urological Association. Fifteen things physicians and patients should question. Available from: https://www.choosingwisely.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/AUA-Choosing-Wisely-List.pdf

  33. van den Bergh R, Gandaglia G, Tilki D, Borgmann H, Ost P, Surcel C, et al. Trends in radical prostatectomy risk group distribution in a European multicenter analysis of 28 572 patients: towards tailored treatment. Eur Urol Focus. 2019;5(2):171–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Loft MD, Berg KD, Kjaer A, Iversen P, Ferrari M, Zhang CA, et al. Temporal trends in clinical and pathological characteristics for men undergoing radical prostatectomy between 1995 and 2013 at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark, and Stanford University Hospital, United States. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2017;16(1):e181–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Onol FF, Palayapalayam Ganapathi H, Rogers T, Palmer K, Coughlin G, Samavedi S, et al. Changing clinical trends in 10,000 robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy patients and impact of the 2012 USPSTF statement against PSA screening. BJU Int. 2019;124(6):1014–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Walsh PC, Mostwin JL. Radical prostatectomy and cystoprostatectomy with preservation of potency. Results using a new nerve-sparing technique. Br J Urol. 1984;56(6):694–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Carroll PR, Costello A, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):405–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Catalona WJ, Basler JW. Return of erections and urinary continence following nerve sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 1993;150(3):905–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Avulova S, Zhao Z, Lee D, Huang L-C, Koyama T, Hoffman KE, et al. The effect of nerve sparing status on sexual and urinary function: 3-year results from the CEASAR study. J Urol. 2018;199(5):1202–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Preston MA, Breau RH, Lantz AG, Morash C, Gerridzen RG, Doucette S, et al. The association between nerve sparing and a positive surgical margin during radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(1):18.e1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Røder MA, Thomsen FB, Berg KD, Christensen IBJ, Brasso K, Vainer B, et al. Risk of biochemical recurrence and positive surgical margins in patients with pT2 prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy. J Surg Oncol. 2014;109(2):132–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Godoy G, Tareen BU, Lepor H. Site of positive surgical margins influences biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2009;104(11):1610–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Eggleston JC, Walsh PC. Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: pathological findings in the first 100 cases. J Urol. 1985;134(6):1146–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hull GW, Rabbani F, Abbas F, Wheeler TM, Kattan MW, Scardino PT. Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients. J Urol. 2002;167(2 Pt 1):528–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Abdollah F, Dalela D, Sood A, Sammon J, Cho R, Nocera L, et al. Functional outcomes of clinically high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017;20(4):395–400.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Yang DY, Monn MF, Kaimakliotis HZ, Cary KC, Cheng L, Koch MO. Oncologic and quality-of-life outcomes with wide resection in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(2):70.e9–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Talab SS, Preston MA, Elmi A, Tabatabaei S. Prostate cancer imaging: what the urologist wants to know. Radiol Clin N Am. 2012;50(6):1015–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Kim SP, Karnes RJ, Mwangi R, Van Houten H, Gross CP, Gershman B, et al. Contemporary trends in magnetic resonance imaging at the time of prostate biopsy: results from a large private insurance database. Eur Urol Focus. 2019 Apr 29. pii: S2405-4569(19)30102-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2019.03.016. [Epub ahead of print]

  49. Rosenkrantz AB, Hemingway J, Hughes DR, Duszak R, Allen B, Weinreb JC. Evolving use of prebiopsy prostate magnetic resonance imaging in the medicare population. J Urol. 2018;200(1):89–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Bloch BN, Genega EM, Costa DN, Pedrosa I, Smith MP, Kressel HY, et al. Prediction of prostate cancer extracapsular extension with high spatial resolution dynamic contrast-enhanced 3-T MRI. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(10):2201–10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, Yakar D, Somford DM, Heijmink SWTPJ, et al. Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology. 2011;261(1):46–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Wang L, Mullerad M, Chen H-N, Eberhardt SC, Kattan MW, Scardino PT, et al. Prostate cancer: incremental value of endorectal MR imaging findings for prediction of extracapsular extension. Radiology. 2004;232(1):133–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. de Rooij M, Hamoen EHJ, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for local staging of prostate cancer: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2016;70(2):233–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Rayn KN, Bloom JB, Gold SA, Hale GR, Baiocco JA, Mehralivand S, et al. Added value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to clinical nomograms for predicting adverse pathology in prostate cancer. J Urol. 2018;200(5):1041–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Morlacco A, Sharma V, Viers BR, Rangel LJ, Carlson RE, Froemming AT, et al. The incremental role of magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer staging before radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2017;71(5):701–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Rud E, Baco E, Klotz D, Rennesund K, Svindland A, Berge V, et al. Does preoperative magnetic resonance imaging reduce the rate of positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy in a randomised clinical trial? Eur Urol. 2015;68(3):487–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Jäderling F, Akre O, Aly M, Björklund J, Olsson M, Adding C, et al. Preoperative staging using magnetic resonance imaging and risk of positive surgical margins after prostate-cancer surgery. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2018;128:492.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Tewari AK, Srivastava A, Huang MW, Robinson BD, Shevchuk MM, Durand M, et al. Anatomical grades of nerve sparing: a risk-stratified approach to neural-hammock sparing during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). BJU Int. 2011;108(6 Pt 2):984–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Schiavina R, Bianchi L, Borghesi M, Dababneh H, Chessa F, Pultrone CV, et al. MRI displays the prostatic cancer anatomy and improves the bundles management before robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2018;32(4):315–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Panebianco V, Salciccia S, Cattarino S, Minisola F, Gentilucci A, Alfarone A, et al. Use of multiparametric MR with neurovascular bundle evaluation to optimize the oncological and functional management of patients considered for nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med. 2012;9(8):2157–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Park BH, Jeon HG, Jeong BC, Seo SI, Lee HM, Choi HY, et al. Influence of magnetic resonance imaging in the decision to preserve or resect neurovascular bundles at robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2014;192(1):82–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D, Froemming AT, Gupta RT, Turkbey B, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS version 2 lexicon: a multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology. 2016;280(3):793–804.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Muller BG, Shih JH, Sankineni S, Marko J, Rais-Bahrami S, George AK, et al. Prostate cancer: interobserver agreement and accuracy with the revised prostate imaging reporting and data system at multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology. 2015;277(3):741–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Rosenkrantz AB, Ayoola A, Hoffman D, Khasgiwala A, Prabhu V, Smereka P, et al. The learning curve in prostate MRI interpretation: self-directed learning versus continual reader feedback. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(3):W92–W100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Gaziev G, Wadhwa K, Barrett T, Koo BC, Gallagher FA, Serrao E, et al. Defining the learning curve for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate using MRI-transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) fusion-guided transperineal prostate biopsies as a validation tool. BJU Int. 2016;117(1):80–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Latchamsetty KC, Borden LS, Porter CR, Lacrampe M, Vaughan M, Lin E, et al. Experience improves staging accuracy of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: what is the learning curve? Can J Urol. 2007;14(1):3429–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Akin O, Riedl CC, Ishill NM, Moskowitz CS, Zhang J, Hricak H. Interactive dedicated training curriculum improves accuracy in the interpretation of MR imaging of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(4):995–1002.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Jansen BHE, Oudshoorn FHK, Tijans AM, Yska MJ, Lont AP, Collette ERP, et al. Local staging with multiparametric MRI in daily clinical practice: diagnostic accuracy and evaluation of a radiologic learning curve. World J Urol. 2018;36(9):1409–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Tay KJ, Gupta RT, Brown AF, Silverman RK, Polascik TJ. Defining the incremental utility of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at standard and specialized read in predicting extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2016;70(2):211–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Mizuno R, Nakashima J, Mukai M, Ookita H, Nakagawa K, Oya M, et al. Maximum tumor diameter is a simple and valuable index associated with the local extent of disease in clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Urol. 2006;13(7):951–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280(11):969–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Stephenson RA, Middleton RG, Abbott TM. Wide excision (nonnerve sparing) radical retropubic prostatectomy using an initial perirectal dissection. J Urol. 1997;157(1):251–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Dussinger AM, Beck SDW, Cheng L, Koch MO. Does wide primary perirectal dissection during radical retropubic prostatectomy alter pathologic and biochemical outcomes? Urology. 2005;66(5 Suppl):95–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Okajima E, Yoshikawa M, Masuda Y, Shimizu K, Tanaka N, Hirayama A, et al. Improvement of the surgical curability of locally confined prostate cancer including non-organ-confined high-risk disease through retropubic radical prostatectomy with intentional wide resection. World J Surg Oncol. 2012;10(1):249.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Miyake H, Fujimoto H, Komiyama M, Fujisawa M. Development of “extended radical retropubic prostatectomy”: a surgical technique for improving margin positive rates in prostate cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010;36(3):281–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Martini A, Gupta A, Cumarasamy S, Lewis SC, Haines KG, Briganti A, et al. Novel nomogram for the prediction of seminal vesicle invasion including multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Urol. 2019;26(4):458–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Yaxley JW, Raveenthiran S, Nouhaud F-X, Samaratunga H, Yaxley WJ, Coughlin G, et al. Risk of metastatic disease on 68 gallium-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan for primary staging of 1253 men at the diagnosis of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2019;44(Suppl. 3):1258.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Yaxley JW, Raveenthiran S, Nouhaud F-X, Samartunga H, Yaxley AJ, Coughlin G, et al. Outcomes of primary lymph node staging of intermediate and high risk prostate cancer with 68ga-PSMA positron emission tomography/computerized tomography compared to histological correlation of pelvic lymph node pathology. J Urol. 2019;201(4):815–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Parker CC, James ND, Brawley CD, Clarke NW, Hoyle AP, Ali A, et al. Radiotherapy to the primary tumour for newly diagnosed, metastatic prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): a randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2018;392(10162):2353–66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Poelaert F, Verbaeys C, Rappe B, Kimpe B, Billiet I, Plancke H, et al. Cytoreductive prostatectomy for metastatic prostate cancer: first lessons learned from the multicentric prospective local treatment of metastatic prostate cancer (LoMP) trial. Urology. 2017;106:146–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Parikh RR, Byun J, Goyal S, Kim IY. Local therapy improves overall survival in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer. Prostate. 2017;77(6):559–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Löppenberg B, Dalela D, Karabon P, Sood A, Sammon JD, Meyer CP, et al. The impact of local treatment on overall survival in patients with metastatic prostate cancer on diagnosis: a national cancer data base analysis. Eur Urol. 2017;72(1):14–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Fossati N, Trinh Q-D, Sammon J, Sood A, Larcher A, Sun M, et al. Identifying optimal candidates for local treatment of the primary tumor among patients diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer: a SEER-based study. Eur Urol. 2015;67(1):3–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Freitag MT, Kesch C, Cardinale J, Flechsig P, Floca R, Eiber M, et al. Simultaneous whole-body 18F-PSMA-1007-PET/MRI with integrated high-resolution multiparametric imaging of the prostatic fossa for comprehensive oncological staging of patients with prostate cancer: a pilot study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45(3):340–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Grubmüller B, Baltzer P, Hartenbach S, D'Andrea D, Helbich TH, Haug AR, et al. PSMA ligand PET/MRI for primary prostate cancer: staging performance and clinical impact. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24(24):6300–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Ravizzini G, Turkbey B, Kurdziel K, Choyke PL. New horizons in prostate cancer imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2009;70(2):212–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Choi S. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2011;186(4):1181–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Hövels AM, Heesakkers RAM, Adang EM, Jager GJ, Strum S, Hoogeveen YL, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol. 2008;63(4):387–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indiana University, Department of Urology, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Ryan W. Speir

  2. Case Western University/University Hospitals, Department of Urology, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Adam C. Calaway

  3. Indiana University Health, Department of Urology, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Michael O. Koch

Authors
  1. Ryan W. Speir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adam C. Calaway
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael O. Koch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael O. Koch .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Temel Tirkes

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Speir, R.W., Calaway, A.C., Koch, M.O. (2020). What the Urologist Wants to Know from Prostate MRI. In: Tirkes, T. (eds) Prostate MRI Essentials. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45935-2_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45935-2_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-45934-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-45935-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation