Skip to main content

MRT der Prostata

MR imaging of the prostate

Der Radiologe volume 55, pages 1088–1096 (2015)Cite this article

Zusammenfassung

Klinisches Problem

Das Prostatakarzinom ist in Deutschland die häufigste Krebserkrankung des Mannes, wobei ein deutlicher Unterschied zwischen Inzidenz und Mortalität besteht.

Therapeutische Standardverfahren

Die Detektion des Prostatakarzinoms basiert auf klinischer und laborchemischer Untersuchung (prostataspezifisches-Antigen[PSA]-Wert) sowie der transrektalen Ultraschalluntersuchung mit randomisierter Biopsie.

Diagnostik

Die multiparametrische MR-Tomographie kann zur Detektion des Prostatakarzinoms, insbesondere bei negativer Biopsie vor einer erneuten Biopsie wertvolle diagnostische Informationen liefern.

Leistungsfähigkeit

Zudem wird zunehmend die MRT-Ultraschall-Fusionsbiopsie in der Diagnostik eingesetzt, wodurch die Detektionsrate des Prostatakarzinoms deutlich gesteigert werden kann.

Bewertung und Empfehlung für die Praxis

Mit Einführung der PI-RADS-Klassifikation (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System) konnte zudem eine Standardisierung der Befundung erreicht werden, was die Akzeptanz der MRT der Prostata in der Urologie erhöht hat.

Abstract

Clinical issue

Prostate cancer is the most common form of cancer in men in Germany; however, there is a distinct difference between incidence and mortality.

Standard treatment

The detection of prostate cancer is based on clinical and laboratory testing using serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and transrectal ultrasound with randomized biopsy.

Diagnostic work-up

Multiparametric MR imaging of the prostate can provide valuable diagnostic information for detection of prostate cancer, especially after negative results of a biopsy prior to repeat biopsy.

Performance

In addition the use of MR ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy has gained in diagnostic importance and has increased the prostate cancer detection rate.

Achievements and practical recommendations

The prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) classification has standardized the reporting of prostate MRI which has positively influenced the acceptance by urologists.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5
Abb. 6

Literatur

  1. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al (2012) European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) prostate MR guidelines. Eur Radiol 2012(22):746–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baur AD, Maxeiner A, Franiel T et al (2014) Evaluation of the prostate imaging reporting and data system for the detection of prostate cancer by the results of targeted biopsy of the prostate. Invest Radiol 49:411–420

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. European Society of Urogenital Radiology (2015) PIRADS vs2. http://www.esur.org/esur-guidelines/prostate-mri. Zugegriffen: 29. Juli 2015

    Google Scholar 

  4. Franiel T, Hamm B, Hricak H (2011) Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and pharmacokinetic models in prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 21:616–626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hamoen EH, de Rooij M, Witjes JA (2015) Use of the prostate imaging reporting and data system (pi-rads) for prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 67:1112–1121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Deutsche Krebsgesellschaf, Deutsche Krebshilfe, Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF) (2014) Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie. Interdisziplinäre Leitlinie der Qualität S3 zur Früherkennung, Diagnose und Therapie der verschiedenen Stadien des Prostatakarzinoms, Kurzversion 3.1, 2014 AWMF Registernummer: 043/022OL. http://leitlinienprogrammonkologie.de/Leitlinien.7.0.html. Zugegriffen: 24. Juli 2015

    Google Scholar 

  7. 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. Aktuelle Urol 46:34–38

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Medved M, Sammet S, Yousuf A, Oto A (2014) MR imaging of the prostate and adjacent anatomic structures before, during, and after ejaculation: qualitative and quantitative evaluation. Radiology 271:452–460

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Muller BG, Shih JH, Sankineni S et al (2015) Prostate cancer: interobserver agreement and accuracy with the revised prostate imaging reporting and data system at multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology. (Epub ahead of print). doi: 10.1148/radiol.2015142818

    Google Scholar 

  10. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2014) NICE clinical guideline 175. Prostate cancer: diagnosis and treatment. http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg175. Zugegriffen: 29. Juli 2015

    Google Scholar 

  11. Nowak J, Malzahn U, Baur AD et al (2014) The value of ADC, T2 signal intensity, and a combination of both parameters to assess gleason score and primary gleason grades in patients with known prostate cancer. Acta Radiol (Epub ahead of print). doi: 10.1177/0284185114561915

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pokorny MR, de Rooij M, Duncan E et al (2014) Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. Eur Urol 66:22–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. de Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Fütterer JJ et al (2014) Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:343–351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rosenkrantz AB, Taneja SS (2014) Radiologist, be aware: ten pitfalls that confound the interpretation of multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:109–120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Schouten MG, Hoeks CM, Bomers JG et al (2015) Location of prostate cancers determined by multiparametric and MRI-guided biopsy in patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen level and at least one negative transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:57–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ueno Y, Kitajima K, Sugimura K et al (2013) Ultra-high b-value diffusion-weighted MRI for the detection of prostate cancer with 3-T MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 38:154–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Radiologie, Charité Campus Benjamin Franklin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12200, Berlin, Deutschland

    P. Asbach,  M. Haas &  B. Hamm

Authors
  1. P. Asbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Haas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. Hamm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Asbach.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

P. Asbach, M. Haas und B. Hamm geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Asbach, P., Haas, M. & Hamm, B. MRT der Prostata. Radiologe 55, 1088–1096 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-015-0035-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-015-0035-0

Schlüsselwörter

  • Magnetresonanztomographie
  • Prostata
  • Multiparametrische Bildgebung
  • Fusionsbiopsie
  • PI-RADS

Keywords

  • Magnetic resonance imaging
  • Prostate
  • Multiparametric imaging
  • Fusion guided biopsy
  • Prostate imaging reporting and data system