Der Urologe

, Volume 56, Issue 5, pp 665–677 | Cite as

MRT der Prostata

  • D. Nörenberg
  • O. Solyanik
  • B. Schlenker
  • G. Magistro
  • B. Ertl-Wagner
  • D. A. Clevert
  • C. Stief
  • M. F. Reiser
  • M. D’Anastasi
CME
First Online:

Zusammenfassung

Neue klinische und technische Entwicklungen auf dem Gebiet der Magnetresonanztomographie (MRT) und gezielter bildgestützter Biopsietechniken haben die Detektion, die Lokalisation, das Staging sowie die aktive Überwachung des Prostatakarzinoms in den letzten Jahren stark verbessert. Die multiparametrische MRT (mpMRT) ist die aktuell führende bildgebende Methode zur Detektion, Charakterisierung und Ausbreitungsdiagnostik von Prostatatumoren und genießt somit im Rahmen der Prostatakrebserkennung und im Rahmen von Staging-Untersuchungen einen hohen diagnostischen Stellenwert.

Schlüsselwörter

Magnetresonanztomographie Bildgestützte Biopsie Prostatakarzinom Fusionsbiopsie PI-RADS 

MRI of the prostate

Abstract

New clinical and technological advances in the field of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and targeted image-guided biopsy techniques have significantly improved the detection, localization and staging as well as active surveillance of prostate cancer in recent years. Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) is currently the main imaging technique for the detection, characterization and diagnostics of metastasizing prostate cancer and is of high diagnostic importance for local staging within the framework of the detection of prostate cancer.

Keywords

Magnetic resonance imaging Image-guided biopsy Prostatic neoplasms Fusion biopsy Prostate imaging reporting and data system 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

D. Nörenberg, O. Solyanik, B. Schlenker, B. Ertl-Wagner, D. A. Clevert, C. Stief, M. F. Reiser, G. Magistro und M. D’Anastasi geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Baras NBB, Bertz J et al (2013) Übersicht zu den Krebssterbefällen. In: Krebs in Deutschland. Robert Koch Institut, Berlin, S 17Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily, Brown LC et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389(16):815–822. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Graham J, Kirkbride P, Cann K et al (2014) Prostate cancer: summary of updated NICE guidance. BMJ 7524:348Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rosenkrantz AB, Verma S, Turkbey B (2015) Prostate cancer: top places where tumors hide on multiparametric MRI. AJR 204(4):W449–W456CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fütterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P et al (2015) Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging ? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 68:1045–1053CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dickinson L, Ahmed H, Clare A 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):477–494CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gupta RT, Spilseth B, Patel N et al (2016) Multiparametric prostate MRI: focus on T2-weighted imaging and role in staging of prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol 41(5):831–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Koksal IT, Ozcan F, Kadioglu TC et al (2000) Discrepancy between Gleason scores of biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Urol 37(6):670–674CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee H, Kim CK, Park BK et al (2016) Accuracy of preoperative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of unfavorable pathology in patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. doi: 10.1007/s00345-016-1948-6 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen M, Dang HD, Wang JY et al (2008) Prostate cancer detection: comparison of T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging, proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging, and the three techniques combined. Acta Radiol 49(5):602–610CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kitajima K, Kaji Y, Fukabori Y et al (2010) 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 31(3):625–631CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T et al (2011) Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology 259(3):775–784CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim CK, Park BK, Kim B (2010) High-b-value diffusion-weighted imaging at 3T to detect prostate cancer: comparisons between b values of 1,000 and 2,000 s/mm2. AJR Am J Roentgeno 194:W33–W37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kasel-Seibert M, Lehmann T, Aschenbach R (2016) Assessment of PI-RADS v2 for the detection of prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol 85(4):726–731CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Katahira K, Takahara T, Kwee TC et al (2011) Ultra-high-b-value diffusion-weighted MR imaging for the detection of prostate cancer: evaluation in 201 cases with histopathological correlation. Eur Radiol 21:188–196CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fehr D, Veeraraghavan H, Wibmer A et al (2015) Automatic classification of prostate cancer Gleason scores from multiparametric magnetic resonance images. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112(46):E6265–E6273CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bjurlin MA, Meng X, Le Nobin J et al (2014) Optimization of prostate biopsy: the role of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in detection, localization and risk assessment. J Urol 192:648–658CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    Akin O, Sala E, Moskowitz CS et al (2006) Transition zone prostate cancers: features, detection, localization, and staging at endorectal MR imaging. Radiology 239:784–792CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Radtke JP, Boxler S, Kuru TH et al (2015) Improved detection of anterior fibromuscular stroma and transition zone prostate cancer using biparametric an multiparametric MRI with MRI-Targeted biopsy and MRI-US fusion guidance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 18(3):288–296CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vargas HA, Akin O, Shukla-Dave A et al (2012) Performance characteristics of MR imaging in the evaluation of clinically low-risk prostate cancer: a prospective study. Radiology 265(2):478–487CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thompson JE, Moses D, Shnier R et al (2014) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging guided diagnostic biopsy detects significant prostate cancer and could reduce unnecessary biopsies and over detection: a prospective study. J Urol 192:67–74CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Le JD, Tan N, Shkolyar E et al (2015) Multifocality and prostate cancer detection by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. Eur Urol 67(3):569–576. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.079 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    de Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Witjes JA et al (2016) Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for local staging of prostate cancer: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 70(2):233–245. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.029 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Berglund RK, Masterson TA, Vora KC et al (2008) Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. J Urol 180(5):1964–1967CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hashimoto T, Rahul K, Takkeda T et al (2016) Prostate magnetic resonance imaging findings in patients treated for testosterone deficiency while on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 34(12):530.e9–530.e14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maxeiner A, Stephan C, Fischer T et al (2015) Die Echtzeit-MRT/US-Fusionsbiopsie in Patienten mit und ohne Vorbiopsie mit Verdacht auf ein Prostatakarzinom. Akt Urol 46:34–38Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kim W, Kim CK, Park JJ et al (2016) Evaluation of extracapsular extension in prostate cancer using qualitative and quantitative multiparametric MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. doi: 10.1002/jmri.25515 Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kamrava M, Kishan AU, Margolis DJ et al (2015) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer improves Gleason score assessment in favorable risk prostate cancer. Pract Radiat Oncol 5(6):411–416CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cameron A, Khalvati F, Haider MA et al (2016) MAPS: a quantitative radiomics approach for prostate cancer detection. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 63(6):1145–1156. doi: 10.1109/TBME.2015.2485779 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wibmer A, Hricak H, Gondo T et al (2015) Haralick texture analysis of prostate MRI: utility for differentiating non-cancerous prostate from prostate cancer and differentiating prostate cancers with different Gleason scores. Eur Radiol 25(10):2840–2850CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Aerts HJ, Velazquez ER, Leijenaar RT et al (2014) Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun 5:2014Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Nörenberg
    • 1
  • O. Solyanik
    • 1
  • B. Schlenker
    • 2
  • G. Magistro
    • 2
  • B. Ertl-Wagner
    • 1
  • D. A. Clevert
    • 1
  • C. Stief
    • 2
  • M. F. Reiser
    • 1
  • M. D’Anastasi
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Klinische RadiologieKlinikum der Universität München, Campus GroßhadernMünchenDeutschland
  2. 2.Urologische Klinik und PoliklinikKlinikum der Universität München, Campus GroßhadernMünchenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations