Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prostate MRI: Technique and Sequences

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Reading MRI of the Prostate

  • 798 Accesses

Abstract

With considerable advances in MR technology, MRI has become an established imaging modality for assessment of prostate cancer. In order to standardize prostate MRI exam and reporting, the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) established consensus-based guidelines for acquisition, interpretation and structured reporting of prostate MRI known as Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System (PI-RADS) version 1 (PI-RADS v1). Thereafter, in 2015, the ESUR and the American College of Radiology (ACR) together released a second version of PI-RADS (PI-RADS v2), which had several important changes. More recently, PI-RADS v2.1 has been released, which further refines MRI protocols and updates evaluation of the transition zone.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(4):746–57.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Barrett T, Turkbey B, Choyke PL. PI-RADS version 2: what you need to know. Clin Radiol. 2015;70(11):1165–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. ACR, ESUR, AdMeTech Foundation. Prostate imaging and reporting and data system: version 2. 2014. Available at 12/9/2016, http://www.acr.org/w/media/ACR/Documents/PDF/QualitySafety/Resources/PIRADS/PIRADS%20V2.pdf [Internet]. [cited 2016 Dec 9]. Available at 14/4/2015, http://www.acr.org/w/media/ACR/Documents/PDF/QualitySafety/Resources/PIRADS/PIRADS%20V2.pdf.

  4. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol [Internet]. 2019 Mar 18 [cited 2019 Jun 27]. https://www.europeanurology.com/article/S0302-2838(19)30180-0/abstract.

  5. Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y, Yamamoto A, Yamashita T, Egashira N, et al. Prostate cancer: relationships between postbiopsy hemorrhage and tumor detectability at MR diagnosis. Radiology. 2008;248(2):531–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Qayyum A, Coakley FV, Lu Y, Olpin JD, Wu L, Yeh BM, et al. Organ-confined prostate cancer: effect of prior transrectal biopsy on endorectal MRI and MR spectroscopic imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183(4):1079–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ikonen S, Kivisaari L, Vehmas T, Tervahartiala P, Salo JO, Taari K, et al. Optimal timing of post-biopsy MR imaging of the prostate. Acta Radiol. 2001;42(1):70–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Barrett T, Vargas HA, Akin O, Goldman DA, Hricak H. Value of the hemorrhage exclusion sign on T1-weighted prostate MR images for the detection of prostate cancer. Radiology. 2012;263(3):751–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Rouvière O, Hartman RP, Lyonnet D. Prostate MR imaging at high-field strength: evolution or revolution? Eur Radiol. 2006;16(2):276–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Shah ZK, Elias SN, Abaza R, Zynger DL, DeRenne LA, Knopp MV, et al. Performance comparison of 1.5-T endorectal coil MRI with 3.0-T nonendorectal coil MRI in patients with prostate cancer. Acad Radiol. 2015;22(4):467–74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Gibbs P, Tozer DJ, Liney GP, Turnbull LW. Comparison of quantitative T2 mapping and diffusion-weighted imaging in the normal and pathologic prostate. Magn Reson Med. 2001;46(6):1054–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Zelhof B, Pickles M, Liney G, Gibbs P, Rodrigues G, Kraus S, et al. Correlation of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance data with cellularity in prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2009;103(7):883–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. deSouza NM, Riches SF, Vanas NJ, Morgan VA, Ashley SA, Fisher C, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: a potential non-invasive marker of tumour aggressiveness in localized prostate cancer. Clin Radiol. 2008;63(7):774–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bittencourt LK, Barentsz JO, de Miranda LC, Gasparetto EL. Prostate MRI: diffusion-weighted imaging at 1.5T correlates better with prostatectomy Gleason grades than TRUS-guided biopsies in peripheral zone tumours. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(2):468–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Itou Y, Nakanishi K, Narumi Y, Nishizawa Y, Tsukuma H. Clinical utility of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in patients with prostate cancer: can ADC values contribute to assess the aggressiveness of prostate cancer? J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;33(1):167–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Verma S, Rajesh A, Morales H, Lemen L, Bills G, Delworth M, et al. Assessment of aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with histologic grade after radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(2):374–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, et al. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology. 2011;259(2):453–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Miao H, Fukatsu H, Ishigaki T. Prostate cancer detection with 3-T MRI: comparison of diffusion-weighted and T2-weighted imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2007;61(2):297–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Turkbey B, Shah VP, Pang Y, Bernardo M, Xu S, Kruecker J, et al. Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? Radiology. 2011;258(2):488–95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Nagel KNA, Schouten MG, Hambrock T, Litjens GJS, Hoeks CMA, ten Haken B, et al. Differentiation of prostatitis and prostate cancer by using diffusion-weighted MR imaging and MR-guided biopsy at 3 T. Radiology. 2013;267(1):164–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kim CK, Park BK, Han JJ, Kang TW, Lee HM. Diffusion-weighted imaging of the prostate at 3 T for Differentiation of malignant and benign tissue in transition and peripheral zones: preliminary results. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2007;31(3):449–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Esen M, Onur MR, Akpolat N, Orhan I, Kocakoc E. Utility of ADC measurement on diffusion-weighted MRI in differentiation of prostate cancer, normal prostate and prostatitis. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2013;3(4):210–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Hoeks CMA, Vos EK, Bomers JGR, Barentsz JO, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Scheenen TW. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the prostate transition zone: histopathological validation using magnetic resonance–guided biopsy specimens. Investig Radiol. 2013;48(10):693–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kitzing YX, Prando A, Varol C, Karczmar GS, Maclean F, Oto A. Benign conditions that mimic prostate carcinoma: MR imaging features with histopathologic correlation. Radiographics. 2015;36(1):162–75.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Koo JH, Kim CK, Choi D, Park BK, Kwon GY, Kim B. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for the evaluation of prostate cancer: optimal B value at 3T. Korean J Radiol. 2013;14(1):61–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Metens T, Miranda D, Absil J, Matos C. What is the optimal b value in diffusion-weighted MR imaging to depict prostate cancer at 3T? Eur Radiol. 2012;22(3):703–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ueno Y, Kitajima K, Sugimura K, Kawakami F, Miyake H, Obara M, et al. Ultra-high b-value diffusion-weighted MRI for the detection of prostate cancer with 3-T MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;38(1):154–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Haider MA, van der Kwast TH, Tanguay J, Evans AJ, Hashmi A-T, Lockwood G, et al. Combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI for localization of prostate cancer. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(2):323–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Delongchamps NB, Rouanne M, Flam T, Beuvon F, Liberatore M, Zerbib M, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the detection and localization of prostate cancer: combination of T2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted imaging. BJU Int. 2011;107(9):1411–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lim HK, Kim JK, Kim KA, Cho K-S. Prostate cancer: apparent diffusion coefficient map with T2-weighted images for detection--a multireader study. Radiology. 2009;250(1):145–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. de Rooij M, Hamoen EHJ, 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):233–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hötker AM, Mazaheri Y, Aras Ö, Zheng J, Moskowitz CS, Gondo T, et al. Assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness by use of the combination of quantitative DWI and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206(4):756–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Kitajima K, Kaji Y, Fukabori Y, Yoshida K, Suganuma N, Sugimura K. Prostate cancer detection with 3 T MRI: comparison of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in combination with T2-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;31(3):625–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Ananya Panda

  2. Fred Jenner Hodges Professor and Chair, Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Vikas Gulani

Authors
  1. Ananya Panda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vikas Gulani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vikas Gulani .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Ananya Panda

  2. Fred Jenner Hodges Professor and Chair, Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Vikas Gulani

  3. Professor and Chair, Urology Institute, Leo and Charlotte Goldberg Chair of Advanced Surgical Therapies, Master Clinician in Urologic Oncology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Lee Ponsky

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Panda, A., Gulani, V. (2020). Prostate MRI: Technique and Sequences. In: Panda, A., Gulani, V., Ponsky, L. (eds) Reading MRI of the Prostate. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99357-7_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99357-7_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99355-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-99357-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation