Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 1255–1258 | Cite as

Dramatic increase in the utilization of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for detection and management of prostate cancer

  • Daniel T. OberlinEmail author
  • David D. Casalino
  • Frank H. Miller
  • Joshua J. Meeks



Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate is an evolving technology that provides functional information of the prostate that helps distinguish benign from malignant lesions. We hypothesized that mpMRI is rapidly adopted in the US to fill the unmet need for a non-invasive, accurate screening tool. The aim of this study is to assess the increasing utilization of mpMRI for the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer.


We conducted a retrospective review of an institutional clinical data repository of four million patients. Clinical information from all men undergoing mpMRI from October 2013 to December 2015 was collected in a prospectively designed database. Individual chart reviews were performed for each patient.


1521 mpMRI of the prostate were performed with an increase in the use of 486% over 26 months. The most common indication for mpMRI was abnormal screening (64%) and 47% of these men went on to prostate biopsy, either by cognitive mapping (65%) or MRI–US fusion targeting (35%). 261 men elected to defer prostate needle biopsy after informative decision-making with their urologist. 12.7% of mpMRI were performed for active surveillance, 7.5% for clinical staging, and 3.2% by radiation oncologists planning radiotherapy. 7% of mpMRI were performed to evaluate the pelvis for biochemical recurrence, a third of which identified a region of suspicion for targeted.


Prostate mpMRI is increasingly performed for both the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. As clinical utilization increases along with the diffusion of technology and radiologic expertise, MpMRI has the potential to influence clinical decision-making and fulfill the need for a non-invasive, accurate tool for the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer.


Mutliparametric magnetic resonance Imaging Prostate cancer Practice patterns Prostate biopsy Active surveillance 


Compliance with ethical standards


No funding was received for this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Informed consent

Statement of informed consent was not applicable since the manuscript does not contain any patient data.


  1. 1.
    Slomski A (2011) USPSTF finds little evidence to support advising PSA screening in any man. JAMA 306(23):2549–2551. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.1804 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Loeb S, Bjurlin MA, Nicholson J, et al. (2014) Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 65(6):1046–1055. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.062 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pinker K, Baltzer P, Bogner W, et al. (2015) Multiparametric MR imaging with high-resolution dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted imaging at 7 T improves the assessment of breast tumors: a feasibility study. Radiology 276(2):360–370. doi: 10.1148/radiol.15141905 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mendhiratta N, Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, et al. (2015) Pre-biopsy MRI and MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy in men with previous negative biopsies: impact on repeat biopsy strategies. Urology. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.07.038 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, et al. (2015) Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 313(4):390–397. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.17942 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, et al. (2014) A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial. Eur Urol 66(2):343–351. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.10.048 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Filson CP, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, et al. (2016) Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: the role of systematic and targeted biopsies. Cancer. doi: 10.1002/cncr.29874 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22(4):746–757. doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging-reporting and data system: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 69(1):16–40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oberlin DT, Meeks JJ, Catalona WC (2016) Diagnostic value of guided biopsies: fusion and cognitive-registration magnetic resonance imaging versus conventional ultrasound biopsy of the prostate. Urology 92:75–79CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alberts AR, Schoots IG, Bokhorst LP, et al. (2015) Risk-based patient selection for magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsy after negative transrectal ultrasound-guided random biopsy avoids unnecessary magnetic resonance imaging scans. Eur Urol. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.11.018 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Streeter EH, Brewster SF (2015) NICE guidelines on prostate cancer active surveillance: is UK practice leading the world? BJU Int 115(1):12–13. doi: 10.1111/bju.12752 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2013.05.006 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Appayya MB, Johnston EW, Punwani S (2015) The role of multi-parametric MRI in loco-regional staging of men diagnosed with early prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol. doi: 10.1097/mou.0000000000000215 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Recabal P, Ehdaie B (2015) The role of MRI in active surveillance for men with localized prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol. doi: 10.1097/mou.0000000000000221 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Willis SR, van der Meulen J, Valerio M, et al. (2015) A review of economic evaluations of diagnostic strategies using imaging in men at risk of prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol. doi: 10.1097/mou.0000000000000220 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wibmer AG, Vargas HA, Hricak H (2015) Role of MRI in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. Future Oncol. doi: 10.2217/fon.15.206 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI, Ricker W, Schaeffer EM (2011) Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol 186(5):1830–1834. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.06.057 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel T. Oberlin
    • 1
    Email author
  • David D. Casalino
    • 2
  • Frank H. Miller
    • 2
  • Joshua J. Meeks
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Urology, Feinberg School of MedicineNorthwestern UniversityChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of MedicineNorthwestern UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations