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.
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 cancerpatients. 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.
Authors: Fergus V Coakley; Irene Chen; Aliya Qayyum; Antonio C Westphalen; Peter R Carroll; Hedvig Hricak; Mei-Hsiu Chen; John Kurhanewicz Journal: BJU Int Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: G J Jager; E T Ruijter; C A van de Kaa; J J de la Rosette; G O Oosterhof; J R Thornbury; S H Ruijs; J O Barentsz Journal: Radiology Date: 1997-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M E Phillips; H Y Kressel; C E Spritzer; P H Arger; A J Wein; D Marinelli; L Axel; W B Gefter; H M Pollack Journal: Radiology Date: 1987-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: K K Yu; J Scheidler; H Hricak; D B Vigneron; C J Zaloudek; R G Males; S J Nelson; P R Carroll; J Kurhanewicz Journal: Radiology Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nick G Costouros; Fergus V Coakley; Antonio C Westphalen; Aliya Qayyum; Benjamin M Yeh; Bonnie N Joe; John Kurhanewicz Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: H Hricak; S White; D Vigneron; J Kurhanewicz; A Kosco; D Levin; J Weiss; P Narayan; P R Carroll Journal: Radiology Date: 1994-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Amita Shukla-Dave; Hedvig Hricak; Oguz Akin; Changhong Yu; Kristen L Zakian; Kazuma Udo; Peter T Scardino; James Eastham; Michael W Kattan Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-09-20 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Ying Chen; Mrudula Pullambhatla; Catherine A Foss; Youngjoo Byun; Sridhar Nimmagadda; Srinivasan Senthamizhchelvan; George Sgouros; Ronnie C Mease; Martin G Pomper Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-10-31 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Vincent Fradet; John Kurhanewicz; Janet E Cowan; Alexander Karl; Fergus V Coakley; Katsuto Shinohara; Peter R Carroll Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-05-26 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: R Jason Stafford; Anil Shetty; Andrew M Elliott; Sherry A Klumpp; Roger J McNichols; Ashok Gowda; John D Hazle; John F Ward Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-08-19 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Carlos F Uribe; Edward C Jones; Silvia D Chang; S Larry Goldenberg; Stefan A Reinsberg; Piotr Kozlowski Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-02-24 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Filippo Pesapane; Francesca Patella; Enrico Maria Fumarola; Silvia Panella; Anna Maria Ierardi; Giovanni Guido Pompili; Giuseppe Franceschelli; Salvatore Alessio Angileri; Alberto Magenta Biasina; Gianpaolo Carrafiello Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 3.064