OBJECTIVES: To assess factors influencing prostate cancer detection on multiparametric (T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced) MRI. METHODS: One hundred and seventy-five patients who underwent radical prostatectomy were included. Pre-operative MRI performed at 1.5 T (n = 71) or 3 T (n = 104), with (n = 58) or without (n = 117) an endorectal coil were independently interpreted by two radiologists. A five-point subjective suspicion score (SSS) was assigned to all focal abnormalities (FAs). MR findings were then compared with whole-mount sections. RESULTS: Readers identified 192-214/362 cancers, with 130-155 false positives. Detection rates for tumours of <0.5 cc (cm(3)), 0.5-2 cc and >2 cc were 33-45/155 (21-29 %), 15-19/35 (43-54 %) and 8-9/12 (67-75 %) for Gleason ≤6, 17/27 (63 %), 42-45/51 (82-88 %) and 34/35 (97 %) for Gleason 7 and 4/5 (80 %), 13/14 (93 %) and 28/28 (100 %) for Gleason ≥8 cancers respectively. At multivariate analysis, detection rates were influenced by tumour Gleason score, histological volume, histological architecture and location (P < 0.0001), but neither by field strength nor coils used for imaging. The SSS was a significant predictor of both malignancy of FAs (P < 0.005) and aggressiveness of tumours (P < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: Detection rates were significantly influenced by tumour characteristics, but neither by field strength nor coils used for imaging. The SSS significantly stratified the risk of malignancy of FAs and aggressiveness of detected tumours. KEY POINTS: • Prostate cancer volume, Gleason score, architecture and location are MRI predictors of detection. • Field strength and coils used do not influence the tumour detection rate. • Multiparametric MRI is accurate for detecting aggressive tumours. • A subjective suspicion score can stratify the risk of malignancy and tumour aggressiveness.
OBJECTIVES: To assess factors influencing prostate cancer detection on multiparametric (T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced) MRI. METHODS: One hundred and seventy-five patients who underwent radical prostatectomy were included. Pre-operative MRI performed at 1.5 T (n = 71) or 3 T (n = 104), with (n = 58) or without (n = 117) an endorectal coil were independently interpreted by two radiologists. A five-point subjective suspicion score (SSS) was assigned to all focal abnormalities (FAs). MR findings were then compared with whole-mount sections. RESULTS: Readers identified 192-214/362 cancers, with 130-155 false positives. Detection rates for tumours of <0.5 cc (cm(3)), 0.5-2 cc and >2 cc were 33-45/155 (21-29 %), 15-19/35 (43-54 %) and 8-9/12 (67-75 %) for Gleason ≤6, 17/27 (63 %), 42-45/51 (82-88 %) and 34/35 (97 %) for Gleason 7 and 4/5 (80 %), 13/14 (93 %) and 28/28 (100 %) for Gleason ≥8 cancers respectively. At multivariate analysis, detection rates were influenced by tumour Gleason score, histological volume, histological architecture and location (P < 0.0001), but neither by field strength nor coils used for imaging. The SSS was a significant predictor of both malignancy of FAs (P < 0.005) and aggressiveness of tumours (P < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: Detection rates were significantly influenced by tumour characteristics, but neither by field strength nor coils used for imaging. The SSS significantly stratified the risk of malignancy of FAs and aggressiveness of detected tumours. KEY POINTS: • Prostate cancer volume, Gleason score, architecture and location are MRI predictors of detection. • Field strength and coils used do not influence the tumour detection rate. • Multiparametric MRI is accurate for detecting aggressive tumours. • A subjective suspicion score can stratify the risk of malignancy and tumour aggressiveness.
Authors: Sophie F Riches; Geoffrey S Payne; Veronica A Morgan; Samir Sandhu; Cyril Fisher; Michael Germuska; David J Collins; Alan Thompson; Nandita M deSouza Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-12 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: Deanna L Langer; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Andrew J Evans; Laibao Sun; Martin J Yaffe; John Trachtenberg; Masoom A Haider Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: L Schimmöller; M Quentin; C Arsov; R S Lanzman; A Hiester; R Rabenalt; G Antoch; P Albers; D Blondin Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-06-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: U B Liehr; D Baumunk; S Blaschke; F Fischbach; B Friebe; F König; A Lemke; P Mittelstädt; M Pech; M Porsch; J Ricke; D Schindele; S Siedentopf; J J Wendler; M Schostak Journal: Radiologe Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 0.635
Authors: A Roosen; R Ganzer; B Hadaschik; J Köllermann; A Blana; T Henkel; A-B Liehr; D Baumunk; S Machtens; G Salomon; L Sentker; U Witsch; K U Köhrmann; M Schostak Journal: Urologe A Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Elmira Hassanzadeh; Francesco Alessandrino; Olutayo I Olubiyi; Daniel I Glazer; Robert V Mulkern; Andriy Fedorov; Clare M Tempany; Fiona M Fennessy Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2018-05
Authors: E K Vos; M W Lagemaat; J O Barentsz; J J Fütterer; P Zámecnik; H Roozen; S Orzada; A K Bitz; M C Maas; T W J Scheenen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-05-28 Impact factor: 5.315