Literature DB >> 19561252

Prostate MR imaging: tissue characterization with pharmacokinetic volume and blood flow parameters and correlation with histologic parameters.

Tobias Franiel1, Lutz Lüdemann, Birgit Rudolph, Hagen Rehbein, Carsten Stephan, Matthias Taupitz, Dirk Beyersdorff.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To prospectively determine whether pharmacokinetic magnetic resonance (MR) imaging parameters correlate with histologic mean vessel density (MVD), mean vessel area (MVA), and mean interstitial area (MIA) and whether these parameters enable differentiation of prostate cancer, chronic prostatitis, and normal prostate tissue.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional review board, and informed consent was obtained from all patients. Thirty-five patients with biopsy-proved prostate cancer were examined with a dynamic contrast material-enhanced inversion-prepared dual-contrast gradient-echo sequence (temporal resolution, 1.65 seconds) at 1.5 T to calculate blood volume, interstitial volume, and blood flow. These parameters were correlated with MVD, MVA, and MIA in 95 areas (prostate cancer, n = 36; chronic prostatitis, n = 27; normal prostate tissue, n = 32). For each MR area, five 1-mm(2) squares (original magnification, x100) of the matching histologic area were analyzed. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: Blood volume correlated poorly with MVD (Spearman correlation coefficient, 0.252; P = .014) but did not correlate at all with MVA (P = .759). Interstitial volume did not correlate with MIA (P = .507). Blood volume differed between patients with prostate cancer and those with a normal prostate (1.49% vs 0.84%, respectively; P < .001). Interstitial volume differed between patients with chronic prostatitis and those with a normal prostate (39.00% vs 22.59%, respectively; P = .022). Blood flow differed between patients with prostate cancer and those with a normal prostate (0.97 mL/[cm(3) x min(-1)] vs 0.34 mL/[cm(3) x min(-1)], respectively; P < .001), between patients with prostate cancer and those with chronic prostatitis (0.97 mL/[cm(3) x min(-1)] vs 0.60 mL/[cm(3) x min(-1)], respectively; P = .026), and between patients with chronic prostatitis and those with a normal prostate (0.60 mL/[cm(3) x min(-1)] vs 0.34 mL/[cm(3) x min(-1)], respectively; P = .023).
CONCLUSION: Blood volume and interstitial volume did not reliably correlate with the histologic parameters. Only blood flow enabled differentiation of prostate cancer, chronic prostatitis, and normal prostate tissue. (c) RSNA, 2009.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19561252     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2521081400

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  17 in total

1.  Human stroma and epithelium co-culture in a microfluidic model of a human prostate gland.

Authors:  L Jiang; F Ivich; S Tahsin; M Tran; S B Frank; C K Miranti; Y Zohar
Journal:  Biomicrofluidics       Date:  2019-11-20       Impact factor: 2.800

Review 2.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and pharmacokinetic models in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Tobias Franiel; Bernd Hamm; Hedvig Hricak
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-12-24       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Assessment of prostate cancer with integrated CT-perfusion using a sector-wise approach.

Authors:  Matteo Ferrari; Martin Huellner; Chantal Pauli; Burkhardt Seifert; Hansjörg Danuser; Patrick Veit-Haibach; Agostino Mattei
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2017-05-03

Review 4.  Imaging angiogenesis of genitourinary tumors.

Authors:  Ying-Kiat Zee; James P B O'Connor; Geoff J M Parker; Alan Jackson; Andrew R Clamp; M Ben Taylor; Noel W Clarke; Gordon C Jayson
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2010-01-19       Impact factor: 14.432

5.  [Rising PSA level and negative prostate biopsy. Can prostate elastography help?].

Authors:  T Eggert; M Brock; J Noldus; H Ermert
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 0.639

6.  A comparison of two methods for estimating DCE-MRI parameters via individual and cohort based AIFs in prostate cancer: a step towards practical implementation.

Authors:  Andriy Fedorov; Jacob Fluckiger; Gregory D Ayers; Xia Li; Sandeep N Gupta; Clare Tempany; Robert Mulkern; Thomas E Yankeelov; Fiona M Fennessy
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2014-01-21       Impact factor: 2.546

7.  Prostate cancer-targeted imaging using magnetofluorescent polymeric nanoparticles functionalized with bombesin.

Authors:  Chang-Moon Lee; Hwan-Jeong Jeong; Su-Jin Cheong; Eun-Mi Kim; Dong Wook Kim; Seok Tae Lim; Myung-Hee Sohn
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2010-02-25       Impact factor: 4.200

8.  COMPUTER-AIDED GLEASON GRADING OF PROSTATE CANCER HISTOPATHOLOGICAL IMAGES USING TEXTON FORESTS.

Authors:  Parmeshwar Khurd; Claus Bahlmann; Peter Maday; Ali Kamen; Summer Gibbs-Strauss; Elizabeth M Genega; John V Frangioni
Journal:  Proc IEEE Int Symp Biomed Imaging       Date:  2010-04-17

9.  Correlation between dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and quantitative histopathologic microvascular parameters in organ-confined prostate cancer.

Authors:  Cornelis G van Niekerk; Jeroen A W M van der Laak; Thomas Hambrock; Henk-Jan Huisman; J Alfred Witjes; Jelle O Barentsz; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-07-18       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 10.  Multiparametric MRI of prostate cancer: an update on state-of-the-art techniques and their performance in detecting and localizing prostate cancer.

Authors:  John V Hegde; Robert V Mulkern; Lawrence P Panych; Fiona M Fennessy; Andriy Fedorov; Stephan E Maier; Clare M C Tempany
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 4.813

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.