Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Role of 3.0 T multiparametric MRI in local staging in prostate cancer and clinical implications for radiation oncology

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Clinical and Translational Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the accuracy of preoperative 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (3TmMRI) for local staging of prostate cancer and its influence on the decision to change the clinical target volume (CTV), total dose and hormonal therapy when treating prostate cancer patients with radiotherapy.

Methods

From 2009 to 2013, 150 patients, who had confirmed prostate cancer and underwent a 3TmMRI before treatment with radical prostatectomy or radical radiation therapy, were included. Radiation therapy treatment (CTV, total dose and hormonal therapy) was initially determined on the basis of the clinical information, and radiation therapy plan was reevaluated after 3TmMRI review. The value of preoperative 3TmMRI in local staging and in the decision of radiotherapy treatment according to NCCN risk classification was analyzed.

Results

3TmMRI performed correct, over- and under staging in 78.7 % (37/47), 6.3 % (3/47), 14.8 % patients (7/47), respectively. 3TmMRI identified 6 cT2a, 7 cT2b, 28 cT2c, 3 cT3a, 3 cT3b tumors. At final pathology, 5 tumors were classified as pT2a, 5 as pT2b, 30 as pT2c, 4 as pT3a, 3 as pT3b. After reviewing the MRI reports, the initial radiotherapy and hormonal therapy plan was changed in 33.9 % patients (35/103).

Conclusions

In our group of patients, 3TmMRI has been a reliable technique providing an optimal staging for prostate cancer. Its routine use could induce important changes in radiation therapy treatments in a significant number of such patients. However, more additional studies are needed to clarify this issue.

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. Siegel R1, Ma J, Zou Z, Jemal A (2014) Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 64:9–29.

  2. Edge S, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A. American Join Committee on Cancer Staging Manual. 7th ed. New York: Springer; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Freedland SJ. Screening, risk assessment, and the approach to therapy in patients with prostate cancer. Cancer. 2011;117:1123–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bostwick DG. Staging prostate cancer 1997: current methods and limitations. Eur Urol. 1997;32:2–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Spiegelman SS, McNeal JE, Freiha FS, Stamey TA. Rectal examination in volume determination of carcinoma of the prostate: clinical and anatomical correlations. J Urol. 1986;136:1228–30.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Smith JA Jr, Scardino PT, Resnick MI, Hernandez AD, Rose SC, Egger MJ. Transrectal ultrasound versus digital rectal examination for the staging of carcinoma of the prostate: results of a prospective multi-institutional trial. J Urol. 1997;157:902–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Boonsirikamchai P, Choi S, Frank SJ, Ma J, Elsayes KM, Kaur H, et al. MR imaging of prostate cancer in radiation oncology: what radiologists need to know. Radiographics. 2013;33:741–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mullerad M, Hricak H, Kuroiwa K, Pucar D, Chen HN, Kattan MW, et al. Comparison of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging, guided prostate biopsy and digital rectal examination in the preoperative anatomical localization of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2005;174:2158–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sala E, Akin O, Moskowitz CS, Eisenberg HF, Kuroiwa K, Ishill NM, et al. Endorectal MR imaging in the evaluation of seminal vesicle invasion: diagnostic accuracy and multivariate feature analysis. Radiology. 2006;238:929–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wang L, Mullerad M, Chen HN, Eberhardt SC, Kattan MW, Scardino PT, et al. Prostate cancer: incremental value of endorectal MRI findings for prediction of extracapsular extension. Radiology. 2004;232:133–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mullins JK1, Bonekamp D, Landis P, Begum H, Partin AW, Epstein JI et al (2013) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings in men with low-risk prostate cancer followed using active surveillance. BJU Int 111:1037–1045.

  12. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, Barentsz JO, Carey B, Futterer JJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European Consensus Meeting. Eur Urol. 2011;59:477–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Barentsz OJ, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al. Esur prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:746–57.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Fütterer JJ, Heijmink SW, Scheenen TW, Jager GJ, Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa CA, Witjes JA, et al. Prostate cancer: local staging at 3-T endorectal MR imaging-early experience. Radiology. 2006;238:184–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Augustin H, Fritz GA, Ehammer T, Auprich M, Pummer K. Accuracy of 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging for the staging of prostate cancer in comparison to the Partin tables. Acta Radiol. 2009;50:562–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Heijmink SW, Fütterer JJ, Hambrock T, Takahashi S, Scheenen TW, Huisman HJ, et al. Prostate cancer: body-array versus endorectal coil MR imaging at 3T-comparison of image quality, localization, and staging performance. Radiology. 2007;244:184–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Torricelli P, Barberini A, Cinquantini F, Sighinolfi M, Casinaro AM. 3-T MRI with phased-array coil in local staging of prostatic cancer. Acad Radiol. 2008;15:1118–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Beyersdorff D, Taymoorian K, Knösel T, Schnorr D, Felix R, Hamm B, et al. MRI of prostate cancer at 1.5 and 3.0: comparison of image quality in tumor detection and staging. AJR. 2005;185:1214–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Park BK, Kim B, Kim CK, Lee HM, Kwon GY. Comparison of phased-array 3.0-T and endorectal 1.5-T magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of local staging accuracy for prostate cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2007;31:534–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sciarra A, Barentsz J, Bjartell A, Eastham J, Hricak H, Panebianco V, et al. Advances in magnetic resonance imaging: how they are changing the management of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2011;59:962–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mohler JL, Kantoff PW, Armstrong AJ, Bahnson RR, Cohen M, D’Amico AV, et al. Prostate cancer, version 1.2014. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2013;11:1471–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, et al. EAU Guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol. 2014;65:124–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Boehmer D, Maingon P, Poortmans P, Baron MH, Miralbell R, Remouchamps V, et al. Guidelines for primary radiotherapy of patients with prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2006;79:259–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Chao KK, Goldstein NS, Yan D, Vargas CE, Ghilezan MI, Korman HJ, et al. Clinicopathologic analysis of extracapsular extension in prostate cancer: should the clinical target volume be expanded posterolaterally to account for microscopic extension? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65:999–1007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Walsh PC. Anatomic radical prostatectomy: evolution of the surgical technique. J Urol. 1998;160:2418–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Hedge JV, Chen MH, Mulken RV, Fennessy FM, D’Amico AV, Tempany CM. Preoperative 3-Tesla multiparametric endorectal magnetic resonance imaging findings and the odds of upgrading and upstaging at radical prostatectomy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85:101–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Cerantola Y, Valerio M, Kawkabani Marchini A, Meuwly JY, Jichlinski P. Can 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging accurately detect prostate cancer extracapsular extension? Can Urol Assoc J. 2013;7:699–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank María Mateo for her contribution to this study like Research and Department Manager of Hospital Universitario Quirón Madrid.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Quirón Madrid, Calle Diego de Velázquez, 2, Pozuelo de Alarcón, 28223, Madrid, Spain

    F. Couñago, E. del Cerro, A. Díaz Gavela & F. J. Marcos

  2. Department of Radiology, Hospital Universitario Quirón, Madrid, Spain

    M. Recio

  3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario La Princesa, Madrid, Spain

    L. Cerezo

  4. Department of Pathology, Hospital Universitario Quirón, Madrid, Spain

    R. Murillo

  5. Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario Quirón, Madrid, Spain

    J. M. Rodriguez Luna

  6. Research Department, Universidad Europea, Madrid, Spain

    I. J. Thuissard

  7. Clinical Department, Biomedicine School, Universidad Europea, Madrid, Spain

    J. L. R. Martin

Authors
  1. F. Couñago
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Recio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. del Cerro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. L. Cerezo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Díaz Gavela
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. F. J. Marcos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. R. Murillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. J. M. Rodriguez Luna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. I. J. Thuissard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. J. L. R. Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Couñago.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Couñago, F., Recio, M., del Cerro, E. et al. Role of 3.0 T multiparametric MRI in local staging in prostate cancer and clinical implications for radiation oncology. Clin Transl Oncol 16, 993–999 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-014-1186-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-014-1186-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation