应用整体组织病理切片评估相关辅助检查在前列腺癌定位诊断中的价值

目的:探讨以前列腺癌根治术后整体组织病理切片(前列腺大切片)作为"金标准"分别评估DRE、前列腺穿刺活检、MRI、DWI在前列腺癌定位诊断中的价值。方法:回顾性分析2009年10月～2010年3月行腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术19例患者临床资料,除外未行MRI/DWI检查、前列腺手术史、已行内分泌治疗等患者9例,符合条件患者10例,于前列腺癌根治术前收集患者的DRE、前列腺穿刺活检、MRI、DWI资料,术后将前列腺标本制成前列腺大切片。应用"六分区法"对前列腺进行分区,DRE检查记录前列腺结节所在区域,前列腺穿刺活检12针依位置编号将阳性者归入相应区域,与术后整体组织病理进行比对。两位阅片者"盲法"进行阅MRI和MRI/DWI片,每个分区分为5档进行评价:1.正常;2.可能正常;3.不确定;4.可能是癌;5.肯定是癌,当两位阅片者所得结果的平均值≥4时,认定该区域是MRI或MRI+DWI评估为前列腺癌的区域。结果:在10例前列腺癌患者共60个分区中前列腺大切片证实的前列腺癌区域为27个(45%),基底部、中部、尖部的前列腺癌区域分别为8个(40%)、11个(55%)和8个(40%),前列腺癌呈明显的多灶性分布。DRE定位诊断前列腺癌的敏感性、特异性分别为29.6%、72.7%,低于其他检查方法,前列腺穿刺活检定位诊断前列腺癌的敏感性、特异性分别为55.6%、81.8%,与MRI的诊断价值类似(51.9%和84.9%),引入DWI参与前列腺癌的定位诊断,可维持特异性不变的情况下,提高MRI的敏感性至77.8%。对于前列腺尖部、中部MRI诊断的敏感性较差(37.5%和45.5%),但特异性和阳性预测值高(100%和100%),引入DWI可将前列腺尖部、中部MRI诊断的敏感性提高至75%和81.8%。结论:MRI在前列腺癌定位中的价值与前列腺穿刺活检相似,但明显优于DRE;引入DWI可以明显提高MRI定位诊断前列腺癌的敏感性,特别是对于前列腺尖部和中部的肿瘤。     

11C-choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for tumor localization of primary prostate cancer in comparison with 12-core biopsy

PURPOSE: (11)C-choline positron emission tomography is an innovative imaging technique for prostate cancer. We assessed the sensitivity of positron emission tomography used together with computerized tomography for intraprostatic localization of primary prostate cancer on a nodule-by-nodule basis, and compared its performance with 12-core transrectal biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 43 patients with known prostate cancer who had received positron emission tomography/computerized tomography before initial biopsy, we assessed sensitivity of positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for localization of nodules 5 mm or greater (those theoretically large enough for visualization) using radical prostatectomy histopathology as the reference standard. Comparison with transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy was based on sextant assessment of all cancer foci following sextant-by-sextant matching and reconstruction. Sensitivity/specificity of positron emission tomography/computerized tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of extraprostatic extension was also assessed. RESULTS: Positron emission tomography/computerized tomography showed 83% sensitivity for localization of nodules 5 mm or greater. At logistic regression analysis only nodule size appeared to influence sensitivity. At sextant assessment positron emission tomography/computerized tomography had slightly better sensitivity than transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy (66% vs 61%, p = 0.434) but was less specific (84% vs 97%, p = 0.008). For assessment of extraprostatic extension, sensitivity of PET/CT was low in comparison with magnetic resonance imaging (22% vs 63%, p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Positron emission tomography/computerized tomography has good sensitivity for intraprostatic localization of primary prostate cancer nodules 5 mm or greater. Positron emission tomography/computerized tomography and transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy show similar sensitivity for localization of any cancer focus. Positron emission tomography/computerized tomography does not seem to have any role in extraprostatic extension detection. Studies of diagnostic accuracy (as opposed to tumor localization) are needed in patients with suspected prostate cancer to see whether positron emission tomography/computerized tomography could have a role in not selected patients.     

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: present and future

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this article is to review the current status of advanced MRI techniques based on anatomic, metabolic and physiologic properties of prostate cancer with a focus on their impact in managing prostate cancer patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Prostate cancer can be identified based on reduced T2 signal intensity on MRI, increased choline and decreased citrate and polyamines on magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (MRSI), decreased diffusivity on diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), and increased uptake on dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) imaging. All can be obtained within a 60-min 3T magnetic resonance exam. Each complementary method has inherent advantages and disadvantages: T2 MRI has high sensitivity but poor specificity; magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging has high specificity but poor sensitivity; diffusion tensor imaging has high spatial resolution, is the fastest, but sensitivity/specificity needs to be established; dynamic contrast enhanced imaging has high spatial resolution, but requires a gadolinium based contrast agent injection, and sensitivity/specificity needs to be established. SUMMARY: The best characterization of prostate cancer in individual patients will most likely result from a multiparametric (MRI/MRSI/DTI/DCE) exam using 3T magnetic resonance scanners but questions remain as to how to analyze and display this large amount of imaging data, and how to optimally combine the data for the most accurate assessment of prostate cancer. Histological correlations or clinical outcomes are required to determine sensitivity/specificity for each method and optimal combinations of these approaches.     

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: Current role in prostate cancer management

Digital rectal examination, serum prostate‐specific antigen screening and transrectal ultrasound‐guided biopsy are conventionally used as screening, diagnostic and surveillance tools for prostate cancer. However, they have limited sensitivity and specificity. In recent years, the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging has steadily grown, and is now part of the standard clinical management in many institutions. In multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, the morphological assessment of T2‐weighted imaging is correlated with diffusion‐weighted imaging, dynamic contrast‐enhanced imaging perfusion and/or magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging is currently regarded as the most sensitive and specific imaging technique for the evaluation of prostate cancer, including detection, staging, localization and aggressiveness evaluation. This article presents an overview of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, and discusses the current role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the different fields of prostate cancer management.     

Transperineal magnetic resonance image guided prostate biopsy

PURPOSE: We report the findings of a transperineal magnetic resonance image (MRI) guided biopsy of the prostate in a man with increasing prostate specific antigen who was not a candidate for a transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using an open configuration 0.5 Tesla MRI scanner and pelvic coil, a random sextant sample was obtained under real time MRI guidance from the peripheral zone of the prostate gland as well as a single core from each MRI defined lesion. The patient had previously undergone proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis and, therefore, was not a candidate for transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy. Prior attempts to make the diagnosis of prostate cancer using a transurethral approach were unsuccessful. RESULTS: The random sextant samples contained benign prostatic hyperplasia, whereas Gleason grade 3 + 3 = 6 adenocarcinoma was confirmed in 15% and 25% of the 2 cores obtained from the MRI targeted specimens of 2 defined lesions. The procedure was well tolerated by the patient. CONCLUSIONS: Transperineal MRI guided biopsy is a new technique that may be useful in detecting prostate cancer in men with increasing prostate specific antigen who are not candidates for transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy.     

Role of magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging before and after radiotherapy for prostate cancer

PURPOSE: To describe the practical technical aspects of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) and to summarize the current and potential future status of MRI and MRSI in the localization, staging, treatment planning, and post-treatment follow-up of prostate cancer. TECHNIQUE: Published contemporary series of patients with prostate cancer evaluated by MRI and MRSI before or after radiation therapy were reviewed, with particular respect to the role of MRI and MRSI in treatment planning, outcome prediction, and detecting local recurrence. RESULTS: Volumetric localization is of limited accuracy for tumors less than 0.5 cm(3). Staging by MRI, which is improved by the addition of MRSI, is of incremental prognostic significance in patients with moderate and high-risk tumors. The finding of more than 5 mm of extracapsular extension prior to radiation seems to be of particular negative prognostic significance, and the latter group may be candidates for more aggressive supplemental therapy. The use of MRI to assist radiation treatment planning has been shown to improve outcome. MRSI may be helpful in the detection of local recurrence after radiation. CONCLUSIONS: Only MRI and MRSI allow combined structural and metabolic evaluation of prostate cancer location, aggressiveness, and stage. Combined MRI and MRSI provide clinically and therapeutically relevant information that may assist in planning and post-treatment monitoring in patients undergoing radiation therapy.     

Comparison of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging, guided prostate biopsy and digital rectal examination in the preoperative anatomical localization of prostate cancer

PURPOSE: We compared the accuracy of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging (erMRI), transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsy and digital rectal examination (DRE) for detecting the location of cancer in the prostate gland and seminal vesicles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study of 106 consecutive patients with prostate cancer who were referred for erMRI before radical prostatectomy. Step-section pathological data and erMRI were available in 90 patients, DRE data were available on 86 and individually labeled sextant core biopsies were available in 45. T1 and T2-weighted erMRI was interpreted by a single reader, who scored the likelihood of tumor on a 5-point scale in each seminal vesicle and in 12 locations in the prostate gland. MR spectroscopy data were not used for erMRI interpretation. One pathologist reviewed whole mount serial sections of radical prostatectomy specimens. The area under ROC curves was used to evaluate accuracy. RESULTS: The area under ROC curves for tumor localization was higher for erMRI than for DRE at the prostatic apex (0.72 vs 0.66), mid gland (0.80 vs 0.69) and base (0.83 vs 0.69). It was likewise higher for erMRI than for TRUS biopsy in the mid gland (0.75 vs 0.68) and base (0.81 vs 0.61) but not in the apex (0.67 vs 0.70). On mixed model analysis erMRI significantly increased the accuracy of prostate cancer localization by DRE or TRUS biopsy (each p <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: For prostate cancer localization erMRI contributes significant incremental value to DRE or TRUS biopsy findings (each p <0.0001).     

The potential role of prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging combined with prostate-specific antigen density in the detection of prostate cancer

Aim:   Two-thirds of patients with a gray-zone prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level undergo unnecessary biopsy. Sensitivity is not yet sufficient to permit the use of modified PSA parameters or magnetic resonance (MR) imaging alone for prostate cancer screening. Thus, we evaluated the combination of MR imaging and PSA density (PSAD) for specificity and sensitivity.
Methods:   During the period April 2004 through March 2006, 185 patients with a PSA level of 4.0–10.0 ng/mL underwent MR imaging and transrectal ultrasonography-guided 8-core biopsy (systemic sextant biopsy of the peripheral zone plus two cores of transition zone). All MR images were interpreted prospectively by two radiologists. An image was considered positive for prostate cancer if any feature indicated a cancerous lesion. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare the usefulness of the PSA level, PSAD and PSA transitional zone density (PSATZ) for the detection of prostate cancer.
Results:   Of the 185 patients, 62 had prostate cancer. Sensitivity and specificity of the axial T2-weighted MR imaging findings for cancer detection were 79.0% and 59.4%, respectively. The area under the ROC curve was 0.590 for the PSA level, 0.718 for PSAD and 0.695 for PSATZ. MR imaging findings and PSAD were shown by multivariate analysis to be statistically significant independent predictors of prostate cancer ( P  < 0.001). With a PSAD cut-off value of 0.111, sensitivity was 96.8%, but specificity was 19.5%. Combining MR imaging findings with PSAD increased the specificity to 40% and retained 95% sensitivity.
Conclusion:   MR imaging findings combined with PSAD provide high sensitivity and improve the specificity for the early detection of prostate cancer.     

Breast magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative locoregional staging

BACKGROUND: Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been recommended increasingly in the preoperative setting for patients newly diagnosed with malignancy to evaluate tumor extent, multicentricity, and contralateral disease. METHODS: Results of conventional imaging, breast MRI, and pathology were analyzed from 603 consecutive breast cancer patients who underwent MRI preoperatively. The focus of this retrospective study was imaging-histologic correlation. RESULTS: Reoperation for positive margins after lumpectomy occurred in 8.8% of patients. Multicentricity was identified by MRI alone in 7.7% of patients, whereas 3.7% were found to have contralateral cancer by MRI. The sensitivity of MRI was 93% in detecting multicentric disease and 88% for contralateral disease, whereas sensitivity for conventional imaging was 46% and 19%, respectively. Unsuspected disease was identified by MRI equally for invasive ductal and ductal carcinoma in situ histology, whereas multicentricity was found more frequently with invasive lobular carcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: Breast MRI is recommended for preoperative evaluation of the newly diagnosed breast cancer patient.     

Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for the detection of tumor foci in men with prior negative transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy

Purpose

We determined the ability of combined endorectal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) to detect prostate cancer foci prospectively in men with prior negative transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) prostate biopsy.

Materials and Methods

Endorectal MRI with spectroscopy was performed in 24 consecutive patients with 1 or more prior negative TRUS prostatic biopsies for persistently increased prostate specific antigen and/or abnormal digital rectal examination. All studies were interpreted by a dedicated radiologist who reported areas of interest in the peripheral zone as normal, equivocal or suspicious on MRI and MRSI separately. Equivocal and suspicious areas were then correlated with a 3-dimensional prostate model. All patients underwent a standard TRUS 10-core peripheral zone biopsy with up to 4 additional biopsies targeted at the equivocal or suspected sites.

Results

Prostate cancer was detected in 7 of 24 subjects (29.2%). Considering the equivocal category as test negative the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and the accuracy of MRI, MRSI and combined MRI/MRSI for the detection of prostate cancer were 57.1%, 57.1% and 100.0%, 88.2%, 82.4% and 70.6%, 66.7%, 57.1% and 58.3%, 83.3%, 82.1% and 100%, and 79.2%, 75.0% and 79.2%, respectively. The site of positive biopsy correlated correctly in 50% and 28.6% of MRI and MRSI labeled suspicious cores, respectively.

Conclusions

MRI and MRSI have the potential to identify cancer foci and direct TRUS in patients with a previous negative TRUS biopsy. Further, larger studies are required to quantify the amount of benefit.     

Diagnostic usefulness of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging with dynamic contrast-enhancement in patients with localized prostate cancer: Mapping studies with biopsy specimens

BACKGROUND: New diagnostic criteria for dynamic magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in prostate cancer are presented. The diagnostic usefulness of endorectal MR imaging with dynamic contrast-enhancement in localized prostate cancer and the validity of these criteria were evaluated. METHODS: Eighteen untreated patients who were suspected of localized prostate cancer were included in the study. They received endorectal dynamic MR imaging before systematic sextant needle biopsy. First. a mapping study with the findings of MR images and histopathology of biopsy specimens was performed in eight patients out of 18 to compare the difference in T2-weighted images with the endorectal coil and the body coil in the same individuals. Second, another mapping study was performed in all 18 patients by analyzing the findings of endorectal dynamic MR images. For the diagnosis of prostate cancer in MR imaging, we offered diagnostic criteria from our experience in addition to those in plain T2-weighted images from the literature. RESULTS: The overall diagnostic rates of endorectal dynamic MR imaging were 88.9% in accuracy, 100% in sensitivity, and 81.8% in specificity. In the comparison of the endorectal and body coils in T2-weighted images in eight patients, there was no difference in the diagnostic rates except for one more histopathologic false positive portion in endorectal MR imaging. In the second mapping study in 18 patients, the diagnostic rates were 92.6% in accuracy, 88.9% in sensitivity and 93.3% in specificity. Endorectal dynamic imaging raised the diagnostic sensitivity from 77.8 to 88.9%. CONCLUSION: The data demonstrated the validity of this diagnostic criteria and the diagnostic usefulness of endorectal dynamic MR imaging in localized prostate cancer.     

Magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging of prostate cancer

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) are evolving techniques that offer noninvasive evaluation of anatomic and metabolic features of prostate cancer. The ability of MRI to determine the location and extent of the tumor and to identify metastatic spread is useful in the pretreatment setting, enabling treatment decision-making that is evidence-based. MRSI of the prostate gland expands the diagnostic assessment of prostate cancer through the detection of cellular metabolites, and can lead to noninvasive differentiation of cancer from healthy tissue. MRI/MRSI can also be used to evaluate both local and systemic recurrence, with endorectal MRI being capable of detecting local recurrence, even in patients with rising serum PSA level but no palpable tumor on digital rectal examination. Considering the benefits that MRI and MRSI have been shown to offer patients, the skills and technology required to perform these tests should be widely disseminated to make their routine use possible. Teamwork between members of radiology, pathology, urology and radiation oncology departments is essential in order to exploit these technologies fully.     

Transrectal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging for detection of rectal wall invasion by prostate cancer

BACKGROUND: This study compared the accuracy of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the detection of rectal wall involvement by prostate cancer in patients undergoing salvage total pelvic exenteration (TPE) or cystoprostatectomy. METHODS: We identified 16 patients who underwent TPE and 24 patients who underwent cystoprostatectomy for locally advanced prostate cancer as salvage procedures with palliative intent. Patients were examined by TRUS, MRI, or both within the month preceding surgery. Histologic evidence of rectal involvement with prostate cancer was considered the gold standard diagnostic criterion in patients undergoing TPE. Among patients undergoing cystoprostatectomy, posterior prostatic surgical margins and clinical evidence of rectal wall recurrence during a median follow-up duration of 18.6 months were considered the gold standard. The sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy with which TRUS and MRI detected rectal wall involvement were compared. RESULTS: Fifteen (93.7%) of the patients who underwent TPE had histologically-proven rectal wall involvement with prostate cancer. Rectal and perineal recurrence developed 10 months after surgery in 1 (4.1%) patient in the cystoprostatectomy group. The sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy of TRUS were: 92.9 (66.1-99.8), 87.0 (66.4-97.2), and 89.2 (74.6-97.0), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy of MRI were: 54.6 (23.4-83.3), 100 (76.8-100.0), and 80 (59.3-93.2), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: TRUS is a highly sensitive diagnostic modality for rectal wall involvement in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. Although MRI is very specific, it cannot reliably rule out rectal involvement in the presence of a positive TRUS.     

Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging staging of prostate cancer

BACKGROUND: There are important treatment and prognostic implications in distinguishing between organ-confined prostate cancer that has spread locally outside the capsule and that which has spread into the seminal vesicles. This study is the first Australian study to report local accuracy for the locoregional staging of prostate cancer with endorectal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: From July 2002 to December 2005, 129 patients were referred for endorectal MRI for all indications. Inclusion criteria were biopsy-proven prostate cancer, minimum 4 weeks from previous biopsy and radical retropubic prostatectomy within 12 months of MRI. This yielded 47 patients. Those with prior hormonal and neoadjuvant radiotherapy or significant postbiopsy haemorrhage were excluded. In addition, those patients examined with our alternate-contrast-enhanced protocol were also excluded. A total of 38 patients met all inclusion criteria. A General Electric 1.5-T whole-body MR imaging unit with an endorectal coil was used with interpretation by two genito-urinary MR radiologists. Final histopathological report was used for correlation. RESULTS: Median age was 60 years with a range 44-72 years. Median prostate-specific antigen was 6.3 with a range of 2-82, and median Gleason score was 6 with a range of 5-8. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion were 69, 82 and 76% and 60, 100 and 95%, respectively. For extraprostatic extension, 71, 86 and 79%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Staging accuracy is similar to internationally published standards. Improvements in hardware and software and increased reader experience will add value to the local Australian prostate imaging programme.     

Prebiopsy magnetic resonance spectroscopy and imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer

Introduction: Existing screening investigations for the diagnosis of early prostate cancer lack specificity, resulting in a high negative biopsy rate. There is increasing interest in the use of various magnetic resonance methods for improving the yield of transrectal ultrasound‐guided biopsies of the prostate in men suspected to have prostate cancer. We review the existing status of such investigations. Methods: A literature search was carried out using the Pubmed database to identify articles related to magnetic resonance methods for diagnosing prostate cancer. References from these articles were also extracted and reviewed. Results: Recent studies have focused on prebiopsy magnetic resonance investigations using conventional magnetic resonance imaging, dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging, magnetization transfer imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy of the prostate. This marks a shift from the earlier strategy of carrying out postbiopsy magnetic resonance investigations. Prebiopsy magnetic resonance investigations has been useful in identifying patients who are more likely to have a biopsy positive for malignancy. Conclusions: Prebiopsy magnetic resonance investigations has a potential role in increasing specificity of screening for early prostate cancer. It has a role in the targeting of biopsy sites, avoiding unnecessary biopsies and predicting the outcome of biopsies.     

The utility of magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for predicting insignificant prostate cancer: an initial analysis

OBJECTIVE: To design new models that combine clinical variables and biopsy data with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) data, and assess their value in predicting the probability of insignificant prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 220 patients (cT stage T1c or T2a, prostate-specific antigen level <20 ng/mL, biopsy Gleason score 6) had MRI/MRSI before surgery and met the inclusion criteria for the study. The probability of insignificant cancer was recorded retrospectively and separately for MRI and combined MRI/MRSI on a 0-3 scale (0, definitely insignificant; - 3, definitely significant). Insignificant cancer was defined from surgical pathology as organ-confined cancer of 相似文献   

Prostate cancer detection by prebiopsy 3.0‐Tesla magnetic resonance imaging

Objectives: The diagnostic value of 3.0‐Tesla magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for prostate cancer remains to be determined. The aim of the present study was to assess the features of prostate cancer detectable by prebiopsy 3.0‐Tesla MRI. Methods: From January 2007 through to December 2008, 116 patients who were examined by prebiopsy 3.0‐Tesla MRI underwent radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. Prostate specimens were examined to see whether the largest cancer area was the same as the area indicated on the MRI. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify variables predictive of agreement between MRI and histopathological findings. Results: Sixty‐six (56.9%) patients were suspected of having prostate cancer on the basis of MRI findings. In 49 of these patients (74.2%), it was considered that there was agreement between the abnormal area on the MRI and the index tumor. Univariate analysis revealed that there were significant differences in abnormal digital rectal examination, capsular penetration, the diameter of the index tumor of the radical prostatectomy specimen, and the Gleason scores of the biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Multivariate analysis revealed that the Gleason score of the radical prostatectomy specimen was associated with the accurate detection of the prostate cancer by MRI (P = 0.0177). Conclusions: In conclusion, 3.0‐Tesla MRI tends to accurately diagnose prostate cancer with high tumor burden and aggressiveness. Multimodal examination (T2‐weighted imaging, dynamic contrast‐enhanced imaging, and diffusion‐weighted imaging) is recommended for the diagnosis of prostate cancer using 3.0‐Tesla MRI.     

Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ cognitive fusion biopsy: Comparing standard and targeted prostate biopsy with final prostatectomy histology

IntroductionThe use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with targeted biopsies of the prostate improves the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Recent studies have shown that targeted prostate biopsies also more accurately predict final histopathology after radical prostatectomy (RP). There are three broad techniques for performing MRI-targeted prostate biopsy: cognitive MRI/ultrasound (US) fusion, software MRI/US fusion, and in-bore MRI-guided. Current practices recommend that a standard systematic 12-core prostate biopsy be performed, as well as targeted biopsies in patients with positive MRI findings. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of histological grading of cognitive MRI/US fusion prostate biopsy by comparing the histology from the targeted biopsy specimens (TB), standard systematic specimens (SB), and the combination of both (CB) specimens with the final histological grade from subsequent prostatectomy.MethodsA retrospective, single-center review of 115 patients who underwent standard systematic and cognitive MRI/US-targeted biopsy of the prostate before undergoing a RP between 2016 and 2019 was performed. MRI findings, biopsy, final histology International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grades, and patient demographics were collected. Cochran’s Q test and McNemar test were used to compare the differences in upgrading, downgrading, and concordance between each biopsy group.ResultsThe concordance between SB, TB, and CB biopsy were 28.7%, 49.6%, and 50.4%, respectively. There was no significant difference in concordance between TB and CB. Patients were more likely to be downgraded on the final histology when comparing CB with TB alone (26.1% vs. 16.5%, p<0.05). In cases where an ISUP grade 1 cancer was diagnosed on TB (n=24), there was a 62.5% chance that the final histology would be upgraded. In the same sample, when combined with a SB, the risk of upgrading on final histology was reduced to 37.5%.ConclusionsAlthough grading concordance between TB and CB were similar, the concomitant use of a SB significantly reduced the rate of upgrading in the final RP histopathology. CB may result in better decision-making regarding treatment options and also have implications for intraoperative planning.     

Diagnostic accuracy of surface coil magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 T for local staging of elevated risk prostate cancer

Introduction:

Preoperative prostate cancer stage predicts prognosis and affects treatment decisions. The purpose of this study was to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of surface coil magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for prostate cancer stage using surgical pathologic data as the reference standard.

Methods:

High-risk patients (≥cT3 or PSA ≥20 ng/mL or Gleason ≥8) and selected intermediate-risk patients (clinically bulky disease on exam or biopsy, cT2b/c, or Gleason 7 with ≥3 of 5 biopsy cores positive in a lobe) routinely received a pelvic MRI at our institution. The images of identified patients were reviewed by one radiologist who was blinded to clinical information. The radiologist reported presence or absence of tumour within each lobe of the prostate. Extraprostatic extension (EPE), seminal vesicle (SV) invasion and pelvic lymph node (PLN) metastasis were also reported. Radiological findings were compared with prostatectomy pathology reports.

Results:

During the study period, about 320 radical prostatectomies were performed. Of these, 32 had a preoperative surface coil pelvic MRI adequate for analysis. Pathologically, 53 of 64 (82.8%) prostate lobes contained tumour, 17 (26.6%) lobes had associated EPE, 12 (18.8%) had SV involvement and 7 (10.9%) sets of PLNs contained cancer. Magnetic resonance imaging sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 94.3% and 81.8% for tumour location, 82.4% and 87.2% for EPE, 83.3% and 92.3% for SV invasion and 71.4% and 94.7% for PLN involvement.

Interpretation:

Surface coil MRI accurately stages many prostate cancer patients with elevated risk of extraprostatic disease. This mode of imaging may be reasonable at centres that do not have endorectal coil MRI.     

Local staging with magnetic resonance imaging after neoadjuvant hormonal therapy for prostate cancer]

We retrospectively studied the staging accuracy of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging after neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NAH) for 21 localized prostate cancers. MR imaging was performed using a 1.5-Tesla magnetic resonance system with a pelvic phased array coil. T2-weighted MR images were obtained on axial and coronal planes, and T1-weighted MR images using the dynamic technique with Gd-DTPA bolus enhancement were obtained in axial planes for each patient. On T2-weighted imaging, the signal intensity of the normal tissue in the peripheral zone became lower after NAH. Therefore, it was more difficult to detect residual malignant lesions in many cases than before NAH. The accuracy of T staging for prostate cancer after NAH in MRI was 71%. The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the extracapsular invasion was 76%, 0% and 94%, respectively, and those of the seminal vesicular invasion 85%, 0% and 100%, respectively. While 2 of the 4 patients judged as downstaged cases in MRI showed corresponding pathological findings, 5 of the 21 cases (23.8%) were underdiagnosed. Local staging with only MRI for prostate cancer after NAH seems to have limits in applicability.