Position of magnetic resonance and magnetic resonance with spectroscopy in detection of prostate cancer
Authors:
Jiří Bárta 1; Zuzana Ryznarová 3,4; Petr Klézl 1; František Záťura 2; Magdaléna Adamová 3; Miroslav Kašpar 3; Jaroslav Novak 1
Authors place of work:
Urologické oddělení FN Na Bulovce, Praha
1; Urologická klinika LF JEP, Olomouc
2; Radiodiagnostická klinika 1. LF UK a FN
Na Bulovce, Praha
3; MR Budějovická, MEDICON a. s., Praha
4
Published in the journal:
Ces Urol 2010; 14(3): 186-196
Category:
Original article
Summary
Aim:
Magnetic resonance (MRI) presently represents an eligible diagnostic method for more precise determination of local extension of prostate cancer status using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS). In our work we present our own experience with MRI and MRS in the detection of prostate cancer.
Methods and results:
We present our experience in MRI and MRS in the group of patiens with previously diagnosed prostate cancer (CaP) referred for radical prostatectomy. Histopathologic findings in radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens were compared to MRI results. The average age in the group was 64.4 years (from 52 to 70 years) and the average prostatic specific antigen (PSA) value was 8.37 μg/l (from 1.5 to 28.5 μg/l). Correspondence in tumor stage definition was found in 27 (73%) cases, which means 76% sensitivity and 80% specificity. In the second group we investigated on MR 23 patients with previously negative histopathologic findings on prostate biopsy and persisting PSA elevation. Correspondence in MR findings and prostate biopsy was found in 14 patients (61%). Discrepancy in MR and biopsy findings was in 9 patients (39%). Prostate cancer was diagnosed only in 5 patients. In 5 patients with PSA elevation after RP we expected MR examination to confirm the local recurrence after RP. However MRI and MRS have not brought suspicion of local recurrence of the disease and later histopathologic investigation of specimens obtained by focused biopsy has not confirmed disease recurrence.
Conclusion:
MRI and MRS are according to our opinion suitable methods for the assessment of local extension of prostate neoplasm. On the other hand our results so far do not confirm the possibility of detecting local recurrence after RP and the possibility of verificating prostate cancer with repeateadly negative prostate biopsies and continuing elevation of PSA level.
Key words:
prostate cancer, magnetic resonance (MRI), magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS).
Zdroje
1. Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2008; 53(1): 68–80.
2. Narayan P, Gajendran V, Tailor SP, et al. The role of transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsybased stagingu, preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen, and biopsy Gleason score in prediction of final pathologic diagnosis in prostate cancer. Urology 1995; 46(2): 205–212.
3. Oesterling JE, Brendler CB, Epstein JI, et al. Correlation of clinical stage, serum prostatic acid phosphatase and preoperative Gleason grade with final pathological stage in 275 patients with clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1987; 138(1): 92–98.
4. Partin AW, Yoo J, Carter HB, et al. The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer. J Urol 1993; 150(1): 110–114.
5. Graefen M, Haese A, Pichlmeier U, et al. A validated strategy for side specific prediction of organ confined prostate cancer : a tool to select for nerve sparing radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2001; 165(3): 857–863.
6. Stauber T, Graefen M, Haese A, et al. Validation of a nomogram for prediction of side specific extracapsular extension at radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2006; 175: 939–944; discussion 944.
7. Shariat SF, Karakiewicz PI, Margulis V, et al. Inventory of prostate cancer predictive tools. Curr Opin Urol 2008; 18(3): 279–296.
8. Partin AW, Kattan MW, Dugong EN, et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA 1997; 277(18): 1445–1451.
9. Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, et al. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms ( Partin Tables) for the new millenium. Urology 2001; 58(6): 843–848.
10. Záleský M, Urban M, Šmerhovský Z, et al. Význam power Doppler sonografie s 3D rekonstrukcí v předoperační diagnostice extraprostatického rozsahu tumoru u klinicky lokalizovaného karcinomu prostaty. Ces Urol 2006; 3: 18–25.
11. Ohori M, Kattan MW, Koh H, et al. Predicting the presence and side of xtracapsular extension: a nomogram for staging prostate cancer. J Urol 2004; 171(5): 1844–1849; discussion 1849.
12. Gilliland FD, Hoffman RM, Hamilton A, et al. Predicting extracapsular extension of prostate cancer in men treated with radical prostatectomy: results from the population based prostate cancer outcomes study. J.Urol 1999; 162(4): 1341–1345.
13. Bostwick DG, Qian J, Bergstralh E, et al. Prediction of capsular perforation and seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer. J Urol 1996; 155(4): 1361–1367.
14. www.nomogram.org
15. Koh H, Kattan MW, Sardino 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.
16. Graefen M, Walz J, Huland H. Open retropubic nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2006; 49(1): 38–48.
17. Perrotti M, Pantuck A, Rabbani F, et al. Review of stagingu modalities in clinically localized prostate cancer. Urology 1999; 54(2): 2008–2014.
18. Seltzer SE, Getty DJ, Tempany CM, et al. Staging prostate cancer with MR imaging.A combined radiologist – computer systém. Radiology; 1997; 202: 219–226.
19. Jager GJ, et al. Prostate cancer staging: should MR imaging be used? A decision analytic approach. Radiology 2000; 215: 445–451.
20. Kirkham AP, Emberton M, Allen C. How good is MRI at detecting and characterising cancer within the prostate? Eur Urol 2006; 50(6): 1163–1174; discussion 1175.
21. Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron D, Caroll P, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: present and future. Curr Opin Urol 2008; 18(1): 71–77.
22. Yu KK, Hricak H, Alagappan R, et al. Detection of extracapsular extension of prostate carcinoma with endorectal and phased–array coil MR imaging: multivariate feature analysis. Radiology 1997; 202(3): 697–702.
23. Presti JC. Jr, Hricak H, Narayan PA, et al. Local staging of prostatic carcinoma: comparison of transrectal sonography and endorectal MR imaginig. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 166(1): 103–108.
24. Hricak H, White S, Vigneron D, et al. Carcinoma of the prostate gland: MR imaging with pelvic phased-array coils versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Radiology 1994; 193(3): 703–709
25. Kubik-Huch RA, Hailemariam S, Hamm B. CT and MRI of the male genital tract. Radiologic- pathologic correlation. Eur Radiol 1999; 9: 6–28.
26. Bartolozzi C, Crocetti L, Menchi I, et al. Endorectal magnetic rezonance imaging in local staging of prostate carcinoma. Abdom Imaging 2001; 26(2): 111–122.
27. White S, Hricak H, Forstner R, et al. prostate cancer: effect of postbiopsy hemorrhage on interpretation of MR images. Radiology 1995; 195: 385–390.
28. Mueller-Lisse UG, Vigneron DB, Hricak H, et al. Localized prostate cancer: effect of hormone deprivation therapy measured by using combined three-dimensional 1H MR spectroscopy and MR imaging: clinico-pathologic case-controlled study. Radiology 2001; 221: 380–390.
29. Nagae H, Sato T, Nagata M, et al. Local Staging with magnetic resonance imaging after neoadjuvant hormonal therapy for prostate cancer. Hinyokika Kiyo 2001; 47: 615–618.
30. Mueller-Lisse UG, Swanson MG, Vigneron DB, et al. Magnetic resonance spectroscopy in patiens with locally confined prostate cancer: association of prostatic citrate and metabolit atrophy with time on hormone deprivation therapy, PSA level and biopsy Gleason score. Eur Radiol 2007; 17: 371–378.
31. Lichy MP, Pintaske J, Mottke R, et al. 3D proton MR spectroscopic imaging of prostate cancer using a standard spine coil at 1.5 T in clinical routine: a feasibility study. Eur Radiol 2005; 15: 653–660.
32. Scheidler J, Hricak H, Vigneron DB, et al. Prostate cancer: Localization with Three- dimensional Proton MR Spectroscopic Imaging-Clinicopathologic Study. Radiology 1999; 213: 473–480.
33. Horiguchi A, Nakashima J, Hiriguchi Y, et al. Prediction of extraprostatic cancer by prostate specific antigen density, endorectal MRI, and biopsy Gleason score in clinically localized prostatecancer. Prostate 2003; 56(1): 23–29.
34. Cornud F, Flam T, Chauveinc L, et al. Extraprostatic spread of clinically localized prostate cancer: factors predictive of pT3 tumor and of positive endorectal MR imaginig examination results. Radiology 2002; 224(1): 203–210.
35. Fütterer JJ, Engelbrecht MR, Jager GJ, et al. Prostae cancer: comparison of local staging accuracy of pelvic phased-array coil alone versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Eur Radiol 2007; 17: 1055–1065.
36. Senczenko W, Bobek-Billewicz B, Rembak-Szynkiewicz J, et al. Prostate 1H-MRS spectroscopy:comparison of 1.5T endorectal three dimensional MRS vs. 3T using a surface coil. Pol J Radiol 2008; 73(1): 7–15.
37. Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron D, Carroll P, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: present and future. Current Opinion in Urology 2008; 18: 71–77.
38. Outwater EK, Petersen RQ, Siegelman ES, et al. Prostate carcinoma assesment of diagnostic criteria for capsular penetration on endorectal coil MR images. Radiology 1994; 193: 333–339.
39. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Schnall M, et al. The impact of the inclusion of endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging in a multivariate analysis to predict clinically unsuspected extraprostatic cancer. Cancer 1995; 75: 2368–2372.
40. Borvik J, Halvorsen OJ, Albrektsen G, et al. MRI with an endorectal coil for staging of clinically localized prostate cancer prior to radical prostatectomy. Eur Radiol 1999; 9: 29–34.
41. Harris SD, Schned AR, Heaney JA. Staging of prostate cancer with endorectal imaging. Lessons from a learning curve. RadioGraphics 1995; 15: 813–829.
42. Borvik J, Halvorsen OJ, Albreksten G, et al. Use of pelvic surface coil MR imaging for assesment of clinically localized prostate cancer with histopatological correlation. Clin Radiol 1999; 54: 164–169.
43. Claus GF, Hricak H, Hattery RR. Pretreatment Evaluation of Prostate Cancer: Role of MR Imaging and 1H MR Spectroscopy. RadioGraphics 2004; 24: 167–180.
44. Ikonen S, Karkkainen P, Kivisaari L, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of prostate cancer:- does detection vary between high and low Gleason score tumors? Prostate 2000; 43: 43–48.
Štítky
Paediatric urologist Nephrology UrologyČlánok vyšiel v časopise
Czech Urology
2010 Číslo 3
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- Microsurgical varicocelectomy in children and adolescents: prospective comparison of laparoscopic and open subinguinal repair
- Our experience with shock waves therapy in patiens with Peyronie’s disease (average follow-up of 13 months)
- Position of magnetic resonance and magnetic resonance with spectroscopy in detection of prostate cancer
- Molecular characteristics of clinically significant prostate carcinoma