Prostate dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI with simple visual diagnostic criteria: is it reasonable?
- 403 Downloads
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of prostate cancer localization with simple visual diagnostic criteria using dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). A total of 46 consecutive patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer underwent prostate 1.5 T MRI with pelvic phased-array coils before prostatectomy. Besides the usual T2-weighted sequences, a 30-s DCE sequence was acquired three times after gadoterate injection. On DCE images, all early enhancing lesions of the peripheral zone were considered malignant. In the central gland, only early enhancing lesions appearing homogeneous or invading the peripheral zone were considered malignant. Three readers specified the presence of cancer in 20 prostate sectors and the location of distinct tumors. Results were compared with histology; p < 0.05 was considered significant. For localization of cancer in the sectors, DCE imaging had a significantly higher sensitivity [logistic regression, odds ratio (OR): 3.9, p < 0.0001] and a slightly but significantly lower specificity (OR: 0.57, p < 0.0001). Of the tumors >0.3 cc, 50–60% and 78–81% were correctly depicted with T2-weighted and DCE imaging, respectively. For both techniques, the depiction rate of tumors >0.3 cc was significantly influenced by the Gleason score (most Gleason ≤6 tumors were overlooked), but not by the tumor volume. Conclusion: DCE-MRI using pelvic phased-array coils and simple visual diagnostic criteria is more sensitive for tumor localization than T2-weighted imaging.
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imaging Prostatic neoplasms Contrast-enhanced dynamic MRI
- 8.Engelbrecht MR, Huisman HJ, Laheij RJ, Jager GJ, van Leenders GJ, Hulsbergen-Van De Kaa CA, de la Rosette JJ, Blickman JG, Barentsz JO (2003) Discrimination of prostate cancer from normal peripheral zone and central gland tissue by using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 229:248–254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Zakian KL, Sircar K, Hricak H, Chen HN, Shukla-Dave A, Eberhardt S, Muruganandham M, Ebora L, Kattan MW, Reuter VE, Scardino PT, Koutcher JA (2005) Correlation of proton MR spectroscopic imaging with gleason score based on step-section pathologic analysis after radical prostatectomy. Radiology 234:804–814PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.van Dorsten FA, van der Graaf M, Engelbrecht MR, van Leenders GJ, Verhofstad A, Rijpkema M, de la Rosette JJ, Barentsz JO, Heerschap A (2004) Combined quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and (1)H MR spectroscopic imaging of human prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 20:279–287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Fan X, Medved M, River JN, Zamora M, Corot C, Robert P, Bourrinet P, Lipton M, Culp RM, Karczmar GS (2004) New model for analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI data distinguishes metastatic from nonmetastatic transplanted rodent prostate tumors. Magn Reson Med 51:487–494PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Ogura K, Maekawa S, Okubo K, Aoki Y, Okada T, Oda K, Watanabe Y, Tsukayama C, Arai Y (2001) Dynamic endorectal magnetic resonance imaging for local staging and detection of neurovascular bundle involvement of prostate cancer: correlation with histopathologic results. Urology 57:721–726PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Rouviere O, Valette O, Grivolat S, Colin-Pangaud C, Bouvier R, Chapelon JY, Gelet A, Lyonnet D (2004) Recurrent prostate cancer after external beam radiotherapy: value of contrast-enhanced dynamic MRI in localizing intraprostatic tumor-correlation with biopsy findings. Urology 63:922–927PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Tanaka N, Samma S, Joko M, Akiyama T, Takewa M, Kitano S, Okajima E (1999) Diagnostic usefulness of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging with dynamic contrast-enhancement in patients with localized prostate cancer: mapping studies with biopsy specimens. Int J Urol 6:593–599PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Ikonen S, Karkkainen P, Kivisaari L, Salo JO, Taari K, Vehmas T, Tervahartiala P, Rannikko S (2001) Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging of prostatic cancer: comparison between fat-suppressed T2-weighted fast spin echo and three-dimensional dual-echo, steady-state sequences. Eur Radiol 11:236–241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Soulie M, Aziza R, Escourrou G, Seguin P, Tollon C, Molinier L, Bachaud J, Joffre F, Plante P (2001) Assessment of the risk of positive surgical margins with pelvic phased-array magnetic resonance imaging in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer: a prospective study. Urology 58:228–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 38.Gossmann A, Okuhata Y, Shames DM, Helbich TH, Roberts TP, Wendland MF, Huber S, Brasch RC (1999) Prostate cancer tumor grade differentiation with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in the rat: comparison of macromolecular and small-molecular contrast media-preliminary experience. Radiology 213:265–272PubMedGoogle Scholar