Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

MRI assessment of seminal vesicle involvement by prostate cancer using T2 signal intensity and volume

  • Pelvis
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Seminal vesicle involvement (SVI) in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer is associated with high rates of treatment failure and tumor recurrence; correct identification of SVI allows for effective management decisions and surgical planning.

Methods

This single-center retrospective study analyzed MR images of the seminal vesicles from patients undergoing radical prostatectomy with confirmed T3b disease, comparing them to a control group without SVI matched for age and Gleason grade with a final stage of T2 or T3a. Seminal vesicles were segmented by an experienced uroradiologist, “raw” and bladder-normalized T2 signal intensity, as well as SV volume, were obtained.

Results

Among the 82 patients with SVI, 34 (41.6%) had unilateral invasion, and 48 (58.4%) had bilateral disease. There was no statistically significant difference in the degree of distension between normal and involved seminal vesicles (P = 0.08). Similarly, no statistically significant difference was identified in the raw SV T2 signal intensity (P = 0.09) between the groups. In the 159 patients analyzed, SVI was prospectively suspected in 10 of 82 patients (specificity, 100%; sensitivity, 12.2%). In all these cases, lesions macroscopically invaded the seminal vesicle, and the raw T2 signal intensity was significantly lower than that in the SVI and control groups (P = 0.02 and 0.01).

Conclusion

While signal intensity measurements in T2-weighted images may provide insight into T3b disease, our findings suggest that this data alone is insufficient to reliably predict SVI, indicating the need for further investigation and complementary diagnostic approaches.

Graphical abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ferlay J EM, Lam F, Colombet M, Mery L, Pineros M, Znaor A, Soerjomataram I. et al. Global cancer observatory: cancer today. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. Available from: https://gco.iarc.fr/today. Accessed 2 February 2019

  2. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017;389:815–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Caglic I, Kovac V, Barrett T. Multiparametric MRI—local staging of prostate cancer and beyond. Radiol Oncol. 2019;53(2):159-170. Published 2019 May 8. https://doi.org/10.2478/raon-2019-0021

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Hull GW, Rabbani F, Abbas F, et al. Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients. J Urol 2002;167:528– 534.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Catalona WJ, Ramos CG, Carvalhal GF. Contemporary results of anatomic radical prostatectomy. CA Cancer J Clin 1999;49:282–296.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Iocca A, et al. Use of Gleason score, prostate specific antigen, seminal vesicle and margin status to predict biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2001;165: 119–125.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nguyen PL, Whittington R, Koo S, et al. Quantifying the impact of seminal vesicle invasion identified using endorectal magnetic resonance imaging on PSA outcome after radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;59:400–405.)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sfoungaristos S, Perimenis P. Preoperative prostate specific antigen and prostate volume are significant predictors of seminal vesicle invasion in patients with prostate cancer. Prague Med Rep. 2011;112(4):263-271

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dall’Oglio MF, Sant’Anna AC, Antunes AA, Nesrallah LJ, Leite KR, Srougi M. Analysis of risk factors of involvement of seminal vesicles in patients with prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy. Int Braz J Urol. 2004;30(6):472-478. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1677-55382004000600004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wang L, Hricak H, Kattan MW, et al. Prediction of seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer: incremental value of adding endorectal MR imaging to the Kattan nomogram. Radiology 2007;242(1):182–188.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ren J, Huan Y, Wang H, et al. Seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer: prediction with combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Eur Radiol 2009;19(10):2481–2486.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ogura K, Maekawa S, Okubo K, et al. Dynamic endorectal magnetic resonance imaging for local staging and detection of neurovascular bundle involvement of prostate cancer: correlation with histopathologic results. Urology. 2001;57(4):721-726.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. de Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Local Staging of Prostate Cancer: A Diagnostic Meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2016;70(2):233-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hwii Ko Y, Jae Sung D, Gu Kang S, et al. The predictability of T3 disease in staging MRI following prostate biopsy decreases in patients with high initial PSA and Gleason score. Asian J Androl. 2011;13(3):487-493. https://doi.org/10.1038/aja.2010.165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Pandey P, Fowler JE Jr, Seaver LE, et al. Ultrasound guided seminal vesicle biopsies in men with suspected prostate cancer. J Urol 1995;154:1798–1801.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Panach-Navarrete J, García-Morata F, Hernández-Medina JA, Martínez-Jabaloyas JM. When to biopsy seminal vesicles. Actas Urol Esp. 2015;39(4):203-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuro.2014.10.006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Saverio Guerra F, Eusebi L, Bartelli F, Cecchini S, Paci E, Guglielmi G. Staging of Prostate Cancer: Role of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Different Risk Classes. Urol Res Pract. 2023;49(4):216-224. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2023.22261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sala E, Akin O, Moskowitz CS, et al. Endorectal MR imaging in the evaluation of seminal vesicle invasion: diagnostic accuracy and multivariate feature analysis. Radiology. 2006;238(3):929-937.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kim CK, Choi D, Park BK, Kwon GY, Lim HK. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging for the evaluation of seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer: initial results. J Magn Res Imaging 2008;28(4):963–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Karanasios E, Caglic I, Zawaideh JP, Barrett T. Prostate MRI quality: clinical impact of the PI-QUAL score in prostate cancer diagnostic work-up. Br J Radiol. 2022;95(1133):20211372. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20211372

  21. Barrett T, Padhani AR, Patel A, et al. Certification in reporting multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: recommendations of a UK consensus meeting (published correction appears in BJU Int. 2022 Mar;129(3):e6). BJU Int. 2021;127(3):304-306. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. de Rooij M, Israël B, Tummers M, et al. ESUR/ESUI consensus statements on multi-parametric MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: quality requirements for image acquisition, interpretation and radiologists’ training. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(10):5404-5416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06929-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Secaf E, Nuruddin RN, Hricak H, et al. MR imaging of the seminal vesicles. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991;156(5):989-994.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Barrett T, Tanner J, Gill AB, et al. The longitudinal effect of ejaculation on seminal vesicle fluid volume and whole-prostate ADC as measured on prostate MRI. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(12):5236-5243.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Gofrit ON, Zorn KC, Taxy JB, Zagaja GP, Steinberg GD, Shalhav AL. The dimensions and symmetry of the seminal vesicles. J Robot Surg. 2009;3(1):29-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-009-0134-x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Koh H, Kattan MW, Scardino PT, et al. A nomogram to predict seminal vesicle invasion by the extent and location of cancer in systematic biopsy results. J Urol 2003;170:1203–1208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wang H, Ruan M, Wang H, et al. Predictive model containing PI-RADS v2 score for postoperative seminal vesicle invasion among prostate cancer patients. Transl Androl Urol. 2021;10(2):584-593.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Valentin B, Schimmöller L, Ullrich T, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging improves the prediction of tumor staging in localized prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2021;46(6):2751-2759.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Jung DC, Lee HJ, Kim SH, Choe GY, Lee SE. Preoperative MR imaging in the evaluation of seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer: pattern analysis of seminal vesicle lesions. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28(1):144-150. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.21422

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Soylu FN, Peng Y, Jiang Y, Wang S, Schmid- Tannwald C, Sethi I, Eggener S, Antic T, Oto A: Seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer: evaluation by using multiparametric endorectal MR imaging. Radiology 2013;267:797–806.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Fütterer JJ, Engelbrecht MR, Huisman HJ, et al. Staging prostate cancer with dynamic contrast-enhanced endorectal MR imaging prior to radical prostatectomy: experienced versus less experienced readers. Radiology 2005;237(2):541–549.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Caglic I, Sushentsev N, Shah N, Warren AY, Lamb BW, Barrett T. Comparison of biparametric versus multiparametric prostate MRI for the detection of extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion in biopsy naïve patients. Eur J Radiol. 2021;141:109804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109804

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Zawaideh JP, Sala E, Shaida N, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of biparametric versus multiparametric prostate MRI: assessment of contrast benefit in clinical practice. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(7):4039-4049.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Schoots IG, Barentsz JO, Bittencourt LK, et al. PI-RADS Committee Position on MRI Without Contrast Medium in Biopsy-Naive Men With Suspected Prostate Cancer: Narrative Review. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021;216(1):3-19. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.20.24268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Sawicki LM, Kirchner J, Buddensieck C, et al. Prospective comparison of whole-body MRI and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT for the detection of biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46(7):1542-1550.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Muehlematter UJ, Burger IA, Becker AS, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Multiparametric MRI versus 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI for Extracapsular Extension and Seminal Vesicle Invasion in Patients with Prostate Cancer. Radiology. 2019;293(2):350-358.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Caglic I, Sushentsev N, Shah N, Warren AY, Lamb BW, Barrett T. Integration of Prostate Biopsy Results with Pre-Biopsy Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings Improves Local Staging of Prostate Cancer. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2022;73(3):515-523. https://doi.org/10.1177/08465371211073158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Tosoian JJ, Chappidi M, Feng Z, et al. Prediction of pathological stage based on clinical stage, serum prostate-specific antigen, and biopsy Gleason score: Partin Tables in the contemporary era. BJU Int. 2017;119(5):676-683. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13573

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke’s Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Jeries P. Zawaideh, Iztok Caglic, Nikita Sushentsev, Andrew N. Priest & Tristan Barrett

  2. Department of Radiology, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy

    Jeries P. Zawaideh

  3. Department of Pathology, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, UK

    Anne Y. Warren

  4. Department of Health Sciences (DISSAL), Biostatistics Section, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy

    Luca Carmisciano

Authors
  1. Jeries P. Zawaideh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Iztok Caglic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nikita Sushentsev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrew N. Priest
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anne Y. Warren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Luca Carmisciano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tristan Barrett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeries P. Zawaideh.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 15 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zawaideh, J.P., Caglic, I., Sushentsev, N. et al. MRI assessment of seminal vesicle involvement by prostate cancer using T2 signal intensity and volume. Abdom Radiol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-024-04349-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-024-04349-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation