Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 24, Issue 9, pp 2236–2244 | Cite as

Feasibility study of CT perfusion imaging for prostate carcinoma

  • Nesat Cullu
  • Mecit KantarciEmail author
  • Hayri Ogul
  • Senol Adanur
  • Aylin Okur
  • Erdem Koc
  • Berhan Pirimoglu
  • Leyla Karaca
  • Yesim Kizrak
  • Ozkan Polat
Urogenital

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this feasibility study was to obtain initial data with which to assess the efficiency of perfusion CT imaging (CTpI) and to compare this with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of prostate carcinoma.

Materials and methods

This prospective study involved 25 patients with prostate carcinoma undergoing MRI and CTpI. All analyses were performed on T2-weighted images (T2WI), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps, diffusion-weighted images (DWI) and CTp images. We compared the performance of T2WI combined with DWI and CTp alone. The study was approved by the local ethics committee, and written informed consent was obtained from all patients.

Results

Tumours were present in 87 areas according to the histopathological results. The diagnostic performance of the T2WI+DWI+CTpI combination was significantly better than that of T2WI alone for prostate carcinoma (P < 0.001). The diagnostic value of CTpI was similar to that of T2WI+DWI in combination. There were statistically significant differences in the blood flow and permeability surface values between prostate carcinoma and background prostate on CTp images.

Conclusion

CTp may be a valuable tool for detecting prostate carcinoma and may be preferred in cases where MRI is contraindicated. If this technique is combined with T2WI and DWI, its diagnostic value is enhanced.

Key Points

Perfusion CT is a helpful technique for prostate carcinoma diagnosis.

Colour maps allow easy and rapid visual assessment of the functional changes.

Colour maps of prostate carcinoma provide information about in vivo tumoral vascularity.

CTp images may be added into routine radiological examinations.

CTp provides guidance for histopathological correlation if biopsy is scheduled.

Keywords

Prostate Carcinoma Magnetic resonance imaging Computed tomography Perfusion 

Abbreviations

ADC

apparent diffusion coefficient

BF

blood flow

BV

blood volume

CTp

computed tomography perfusion

DWI

diffusion weighted imaging

MVD

microvessel density

PS

permeability surface

Notes

Acknowledgments

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Mecit Kantarci. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study. Written informed consent was waived by the institutional review board. Methodology: prospective, diagnostic study, performed at one institution.

Conflict of interest

We have declared that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Soylu FN, Eggener S, Oto A (2012) Local staging of prostate cancer with MRI. Diagn Interv Radiol 18:365–373PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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 49:602PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Haider MA, van der Kwast TH, Tanguay J et al (2007) Combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI for localization of prostate cancer. Am J Roentgenol 189:323–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lim HK, Kim JK, Kim KA, Cho KS (2009) Prostate cancer: apparent diffusion coefficient map with T2-weighted images for detection—a multireader study. Radiology 250:145–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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 21:188–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tan CH, Wang J, Kundra V (2011) Diffusion weighted imaging in prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 21:593–603PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Engelbrecht MR, Jager GJ, Laheij RJ et al (2002) Local staging of prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 12:2294–2302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Choy M, Rafii S (2001) Role of angiogenesis in the progression and treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer Invest 19:181–191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aragon-Ching JB, Dahut WL (2009) VEGF inhibitors and prostate cancer therapy. Curr Mol Pharmacol 2:161–168PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bunsiripaiboon P, Sornmayura P, Wilasrusmee C, Lertsithichai P (2010) The prognostic significance of microvessel density in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. J Med Assoc Thai 93:66–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Erbersdobler A, Isbarn H, Dix K et al (2010) Prognostic value of microvessel density in prostate cancer: a tissue microarray study. World J Urol 28:687–692PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cuenod CA, Fournier L, Balvay D, Guinebretière JM (2006) Tumor angiogenesis: pathophysiology and implications for contrast-enhanced MRI and CT assessment. Abdom Imaging 31:188–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hawighorst H, Knapstein PG, Knopp MV et al (1998) Uterine cervical carcinoma: comparison of standard and pharmacokinetic analysis of time-intensity curves for assessment of tumor angiogenesis and patient survival. Cancer Res 58:3598–3602PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miles KA (2006) Perfusion imaging with computed tomography: brain and beyond. Eur Radiol 16:37–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gandhi D, Hoeffner EG, Carlos RC (2003) Computed tomography perfusion of squamous cell carcinoma of the upper aerodigestive tract initial results. J Comput Assist Tomogr 27:687–693PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kan Z, Phongkitkarun S, Kobayashi S et al (2005) Functional CT for quantifying tumor perfusion in antiangiogenic therapy in a rat model. Radiology 237:151–158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li Y, Yang ZG, Chen TW et al (2008) Whole tumour perfusion of peripheral lung carcinoma: evaluation with first-pass CT perfusion imaging at 64-detector row CT. Clin Radiol 63:629–635PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sahani DV, Holalkere NS, Mueller PR et al (2007) Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: CT perfusion of liver and tumor tissue—initial experience. Radiology 243:736–743PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sahani DV, Kalva SP, Hamberg LM et al (2005) Assessing tumor perfusion and treatment response in rectal cancer with multisection CT: initial observations. Radiology 234:785–792PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miles KA (2002) Functional computed tomography in oncology. Eur J Cancer 38:2079–2084PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miles KA, Griffiths MR (2003) Perfusion CT: a worthwhile enhancement? Br J Radiol 76:220–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mullerad M, Hricak H, Kuroiwa K et al (2005) Comparison of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging, guided prostate biopsy and digital rectal examination in the preoperative anatomical localization of prostate cancer. J Urol 174:2158–2163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T et al (2011) Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology 259:775–784PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Miao H, Fukatsu H, Ishigaki T (2007) Prostate cancer detection with 3-T MRI: comparison of diffusion-weighted and T2-weighted imaging. Eur J Radiol 61:297–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Osimani M, Bellini D, Di Cristofano C et al (2012) Perfusion MDCT of prostate cancer: correlation of perfusion CT parameters and immunohistochemical markers of angiogenesis. Am J Roentgenol 199:1042–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kerbel RS (2008) Tumor angiogenesis. N Engl J Med 358:2039–2049PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Padhani AR, Harvey CJ, Cosgrove DO (2005) Angiogenesis imaging in the management of prostate cancer. Nat Clin Pract Urol 2:596–607PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Choyke PL, Dwyer AJ, Knopp MV (2003) Functional tumor imaging with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 17:509–520PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gossmann A, Helbich TH, Kuriyama N et al (2002) Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as a surrogate marker of tumor response to anti-angiogenic therapy in a xenograft model of glioblastoma multiforme. J Magn Reson Imaging 15:233–240PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Maxwell RJ, Wilson J, Prise VE et al (2002) Evaluation of the anti-vascular effects of combretastatin in rodent tumours by dynamic contrast enhanced MRI. NMR Biomed 15:89–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hara N, Okuizumi M, Koike H et al (2005) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging (DCE–MRI) is a useful modality for the precise detection and staging of early prostate cancer. Prostate 62:140–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ocak I, Bernardo M, Metzger G et al (2007) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer at 3T: a study of pharmacokinetic parameters. Am J Roentgenol 189:192–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Scherr MK, Seitz M, Muller-Lisse UG et al (2010) MR perfusion (MRP) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in prostate cancer: quantitative and model-based gadobenate dimeglumine MRP parameters in detection of prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol 76:359–366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ives EP, Burke MA, Edmonds PR et al (2005) Quantitative computed tomography perfusion of prostate cancer: correlation with whole-mount pathology. Clin Prostate Cancer 4:109–112PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nesat Cullu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mecit Kantarci
    • 2
    Email author
  • Hayri Ogul
    • 2
  • Senol Adanur
    • 3
  • Aylin Okur
    • 2
    • 4
  • Erdem Koc
    • 3
  • Berhan Pirimoglu
    • 2
  • Leyla Karaca
    • 2
  • Yesim Kizrak
    • 2
  • Ozkan Polat
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyMuğla Sıtkı Koçman University, School of MedicineMuğlaTurkey
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyAtatürk University, School of MedicineErzurumTurkey
  3. 3.Department of UrologyAtatürk University, School of MedicineErzurumTurkey
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyBozok University, School of MedicineYozgatTurkey

Personalised recommendations