Seyed Saeid Dianat1, H Ballentine Carter2, Katarzyna J Macura3. 1. The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. 2. The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. 3. The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. Electronic address: kmacura@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to review the multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mMRI) of the prostate and MR-guided prostate biopsy, and their role in the evaluation and management of men with low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: We performed a literature review based on the MEDLINE database search for publications on the role of mMRI (a) in detection and localization of prostate cancer, prediction of tumor aggressiveness and progression and (b) in guiding targeted prostate biopsy. RESULTS: The mMRI, particularly diffusion-weighted imaging with T2-weighted imaging, is a useful tool for tumor localization in low-risk prostate cancer as it can detect lesions that are more likely missed on extended biopsy schemes and can identify clinically significant disease requiring definitive treatment. The MR-guided biopsy of the most suspicious lesions enables more accurate and safer approach to guide enrollment into the active surveillance program. However, the MR-guided biopsy is complex. The fusion of MRI data with transrectal ultrasound for the purpose of biopsy provides a more feasible technique with documented accurate sampling. CONCLUSION: Although the mMRI is not routinely used for risk stratification and prognostic assessment in prostate cancer, it can provide valuable information to guide management of men with low-risk disease. Incorporation of mMRI into the workup and monitoring of patients with low-risk prostate cancer can help discriminate clinically significant disease from indolent disease. Targeted biopsy of MR-suspicious lesions enables accurate sampling of potentially aggressive tumors that may affect outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to review the multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mMRI) of the prostate and MR-guided prostate biopsy, and their role in the evaluation and management of men with low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: We performed a literature review based on the MEDLINE database search for publications on the role of mMRI (a) in detection and localization of prostate cancer, prediction of tumor aggressiveness and progression and (b) in guiding targeted prostate biopsy. RESULTS: The mMRI, particularly diffusion-weighted imaging with T2-weighted imaging, is a useful tool for tumor localization in low-risk prostate cancer as it can detect lesions that are more likely missed on extended biopsy schemes and can identify clinically significant disease requiring definitive treatment. The MR-guided biopsy of the most suspicious lesions enables more accurate and safer approach to guide enrollment into the active surveillance program. However, the MR-guided biopsy is complex. The fusion of MRI data with transrectal ultrasound for the purpose of biopsy provides a more feasible technique with documented accurate sampling. CONCLUSION: Although the mMRI is not routinely used for risk stratification and prognostic assessment in prostate cancer, it can provide valuable information to guide management of men with low-risk disease. Incorporation of mMRI into the workup and monitoring of patients with low-risk prostate cancer can help discriminate clinically significant disease from indolent disease. Targeted biopsy of MR-suspicious lesions enables accurate sampling of potentially aggressive tumors that may affect outcomes.
Authors: Diederik M Somford; Caroline M Hoeks; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Thomas Hambrock; Jurgen J Fütterer; J Alfred Witjes; Chris H Bangma; Henk Vergunst; Geert A Smits; Jorg R Oddens; Inge M van Oort; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: David Bonekamp; Michael A Jacobs; Riham El-Khouli; Dan Stoianovici; Katarzyna J Macura Journal: Radiographics Date: 2011 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Peter A Pinto; Paul H Chung; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Angelo A Baccala; Jochen Kruecker; Compton J Benjamin; Sheng Xu; Pingkun Yan; Samuel Kadoury; Celene Chua; Julia K Locklin; Baris Turkbey; Joanna H Shih; Stacey P Gates; Carey Buckner; Gennady Bratslavsky; W Marston Linehan; Neil D Glossop; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Simon R J Bott; Hashim U Ahmed; Richard G Hindley; Ahmad Abdul-Rahman; Alex Freeman; Mark Emberton Journal: BJU Int Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Caroline M A Hoeks; Martijn G Schouten; Joyce G R Bomers; Stefan P Hoogendoorn; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Thomas Hambrock; Henk Vergunst; J P Michiel Sedelaar; Jurgen J Fütterer; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Andreas Erbersdobler; Hendrik Isbarn; Kira Dix; Isabel Steiner; Thorsten Schlomm; Martina Mirlacher; Guido Sauter; Alexander Haese Journal: World J Urol Date: 2009-08-28 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Anurag K Singh; Jochen Kruecker; Sheng Xu; Neil Glossop; Peter Guion; Karen Ullman; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood Journal: BJU Int Date: 2007-12-05 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Anurag K Singh; Axel Krieger; Jean-Baptiste Lattouf; Peter Guion; Robert L Grubb; Paul S Albert; Greg Metzger; Karen Ullman; Sharon Smith; Gabor Fichtinger; Iclal Ocak; Peter Choyke; Cynthia Ménard; Jonathan Coleman Journal: BJU Int Date: 2007-10-08 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Steven P Rowe; Kenneth L Gage; Sheila F Faraj; Katarzyna J Macura; Toby C Cornish; Nilda Gonzalez-Roibon; Gunes Guner; Enrico Munari; Alan W Partin; Christian P Pavlovich; Misop Han; H Ballentine Carter; Trinity J Bivalacqua; Amanda Blackford; Daniel Holt; Robert F Dannals; George J Netto; Martin A Lodge; Ronnie C Mease; Martin G Pomper; Steve Y Cho Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Thomas Koesters; Anne-Kristin Vahle; Kent Friedman; Rachel M Bartlett; Samir S Taneja; Yu-Shin Ding; Jean Logan Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Sandeep Sankineni; Arvin K George; Anna M Brown; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Abdom Imaging Date: 2015-10
Authors: Robert R Flavell; Antonio C Westphalen; Carmin Liang; Christopher C Sotto; Susan M Noworolski; Daniel B Vigneron; Zhen J Wang; John Kurhanewicz Journal: Abdom Imaging Date: 2014-10
Authors: Peter Donato; Matthew J Roberts; Andrew Morton; Samuel Kyle; Geoff Coughlin; Rachel Esler; Nigel Dunglison; Robert A Gardiner; John Yaxley Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-09-19 Impact factor: 9.236