Vol. 6 (01) pp. 1123-1131 DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/6329

THE EVOLVING ROLE OF MULTIPARAMETRIC MRI IN PROSTATE CANCER WORK-UP.

  • Department of Radiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
  • CamPARI Clinic, Addenbrooke?s Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
6 Downloads 64 Views
Crossref

Download Full Paper (PDF)

Abstract

Prostate cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in men after skin cancer, with an incidence expected to double by 2030 mainly due to the ageing population. However, many more men die with prostate cancer rather than from the disease, highlighting the indolent nature of many tumours. Recently, multiparametric MRI has revolutionised the work-up of prostate cancer, becoming a routine part of clinical practice and migrating earlier in the diagnostic pathway. However, the technique remains challenging, with patient-related factors, intrinsic insensitivity of MRI, protocol differences, and radiologist experienced all combining to limit its overall accuracy. Anatomical T2-weighted imaging is limited by the non-specific nature of its findings and improvements have mainly been driven by the addition of functional sequences such as diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and spectroscopy. In the absence of validated circulating biomarkers, only functional imaging currently offers the potential for further improvements in lesion detection and characterisation, with the additional advantages of providing whole gland coverage of the prostate and being non-invasive. An overview of the evolving role of prostate multiparametric MRI is provided, along with its strengths and weaknesses and an exploration of how it can help overcome limitations in the traditional work-up of patients.

Article Analytics

References

  1. Siegel RL, et al. Cancer Statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017; 67(1):7-30
  2. Cancer Research UK Cancer Statistics, 2016: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/ Last accessed January 12, 2018
  3. Maddams J, et al. Projections of cancer prevalence in the United Kingdom, 2010? 2040. Br J Cancer 2012; 107:1195?1202
  4. Potosky AL, et al. The role of increasing detection in the rising incidence of prostate cancer. JAMA. 1995; 273:548-55
  5. Zarghami N, et al. Expression of the prostate specific antigen gene by lung tissue. Clin Cancer Res. 1997; 3(7):1201-6
  6. Grubb RL 3rd, et al. Prostate cancer screening in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian cancer screening trial: update on findings from the initial four rounds of screening in a randomized trial. BJU Int. 2008;102(11):1524-30
  7. Thompson IM, et al. Operating characteristics of prostate-specific antigen in men with an initial PSA level of 3.0 ng/ml or lower. JAMA. 2005; 294(1):66-7
  8. Thompson IM, et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter. NEJM 2004;350:2239-46
  9. Moyer VA; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012; 157:120-13
  10. American Cancer Society: Cancer Facts and Figures 2013. Atlanta, Ga. Available at: https://www.cancer.org/research/cancer-facts-statistics/all-cancer-facts-figures/cancer-facts-figures-2017.html Last accessed January 12, 2018
  11. Welch HG, Albertsen PC. Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment after the introduction of prostate-specific antigen screening: 1986-2005. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009; 101(19):1325-9
  12. Stamey TA, et al. The prostate specific antigen era in the United States is over for prostate cancer: what happened in the last 20 years? J Urol 2004; 172:1297-301
  13. Klotz L. Prostate cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes 2013; 20:204?209
  14. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. SEER*Stat Database: Incidence-SEER 9 Regs Research Data with Delay-Adjustment, Malignant Only, Nov. 2015 Sub (1975-2013) <Katrina/Rita Population Adjustment>-Linked To County Attributes-Total US, 1969-2014 Counties. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Surveillance Research Program, Surveillance Systems Branch; 2016
  15. Ficarra V, et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2009; 55(5):1037-63
  16. Locally advanced prostate cancer: effective treatments, but many adverse effects. Prescrire Int. 2013; 22(134):18-20, 22-3
  17. Mendenhall WM, et al. Erectile dysfunction after radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Am J Clin Oncol. 2009; 32(4):443-7
  18. Schr?der FH, et al; ERSPC Investigators. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:1320?1328
  19. Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 2012; 380:1778?1786
  20. Barrett T, Haider MA. The Emerging Role of MRI in Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance and Ongoing Challenges. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017; 208(1):131-139
  21. Wilt TJ, et al. Prostate Cancer Intervention versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) Study Group. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(3):203-13
  22. Hamdy FC, et al. 10-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375(15):1415-1424
  23. Murphy G, et al. The expanding role of MRI in prostate cancer. AJR 2013; 201:1229?1238
  24. Kv?le R, et al. Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population-based study. BJU Int. 2009; 103(12):1647-54
  25. Hu Y, et al. A biopsy simulation study to assess the accuracy of several transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-biopsy strategies compared with template prostate mapping biopsies in patients who have undergone radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2012; 110:812?820
  26. Gnanapragasam VJ, Burling K, George A, Stearn S, Warren A, Barrett T, et al. The Prostate Health Index adds predictive value to multi-parametric MRI in detecting significant prostate cancers in a repeat biopsy population. Sci Rep. 2016; 6:35364
  27. Wadhwa K, Barrett T, Kastner C. The post PSA era: new developments in biomarkers, imaging and biopsy techniques in prostate cancer detection. Trends in Urology & Men's Health. 2015; 6(4):25-29. doi: 10.1002/tre.470
  28. Siddiqui MM, et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA. 2015; 313(4):390-7
  29. Lawrence EM, et al. The emerging role of diffusion-weighted MRI in prostate cancer management. Nat Rev Urol 2012; 9(2):94-10
  30. Schoots IG, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015; 68(3):438-50
  31. Kirkham AP, et al. Prostate MRI: who, when, and how? Report from a UK consensus meeting. Clin Radiol. 2013; 68(10):1016-23
  32. Ahmed HU, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017; 389(10071): 815-22
  33. Barrett T. What is Multiparametric-MRI of the Prostate and Why Do We Need It? J Imag Int Rad. 2016; 1(2):1-5
  34. De Visschere PJ, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging characteristics of normal, benign and malignant conditions in the prostate. Eur Radiol. 2017; 27(5):2095-2109
  35. Barrett T, et al. Value of the hemorrhage exclusion sign on T1-weighted prostate MR images for the detection of prostate cancer. Radiology. 2012; 263(3):751-7
  36. Xu Y, et al. The benign mimickers of prostatic acinar adenocarcinoma. Chin J Cancer Res. 2016; 28(1):72-9
  37. Macura KJ, et al. Patterns of enhancement on breast MR images: interpretation and imaging pitfalls. Radiographics. 2006; 26(6):1719-34
  38. Hansford BG, et al. Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging Curve-type Analysis: Is It Helpful in the Differentiation of Prostate Cancer from Healthy Peripheral Zone? Radiology. 2015; 275(2):448-5
  39. Barrett T, et al. PI-RADS version 2: what you need to know. Clin Radiol. 2015; 70(11):1165-76
  40. Turkbey B, et al. Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. J Urol. 2011; 186(5):1818-24
  41. Mowatt G, et al. The diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance spectroscopy and enhanced magnetic resonance imaging techniques in aiding the localisation of prostate abnormalities for biopsy: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2013; 17(20):vii-xix, 1-281
  42. Barentsz JO, et al; European Society of Urogenital Radiology ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012; 22(4):746-5
  43. Langer DL, et al. Intermixed normal tissue within prostate cancer: effect on MR imaging measurements of apparent diffusion coefficient and T2-sparse versus dense cancers. Radiology. 2008; 249(3):900-8
  44. Rosenkrantz AB, et al. The Learning Curve in Prostate MRI Interpretation: Self-Directed Learning Versus Continual Reader Feedback. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017; 208(3):W92-W100
  45. Gaziev G, Wadhwa K, Barrett T, et al. Defining the learning curve for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate using MRI-transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) fusion-guided transperineal prostate biopsies as a validation tool. BJU Int. 2016; 117(1):80-6
  46. Puech P, et al. How are we going to train a generation of radiologists (and urologists) to read prostate MRI? Curr Opin Urol. 2015; 25(6):522-35
  47. Lemaitre L, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of anterior prostate cancer: Morphometric assessment and correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. Eur Radiol. 2009; 19:470?8
  48. Woo S, et al. Diagnostic Performance of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2017; 72(2):177-188
  49. Turkbey B, et al. Imaging localized prostate cancer: current approaches and new developments. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009; 192(6):1471-80
  50. de Rooij M, et al. Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014; 202(2):343-51
  51. Hamoen EHJ, et al. 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. 2015; 67(6):1112-1121
  52. Rosenkrantz AB, et al. Interobserver Reproducibility of the PI-RADS Version 2 Lexicon: A Multicenter Study of Six Experienced Prostate Radiologists. Radiology 2016; 280:793?804
  53. Muller BG, et al. Prostate Cancer: Interobserver Agreement and Accuracy with the Revised Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System at Multiparametric MR Imaging. Radiology. 2015; 277(3):741-50
  54. Moldovan, et al. What Is the Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Excluding Prostate Cancer at Biopsy? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol. 2017; 72(2):250-266.

How to Cite This Article

Tristan Barrett (2018); THE EVOLVING ROLE OF MULTIPARAMETRIC MRI IN PROSTATE CANCER WORK-UP., Int. J. of Adv. Res., 6 (01), 1123-1131, ISSN 2320-5407. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/6329

Corresponding Author

Tristan Barrett
Department of Radiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.