Prostate Imaging – An Update

Abstract

New technical and clinical developments of sonography and magnetic resonance imaging include improved detection, localization and staging as well as active surveillance of prostate cancer. Multiparametric MRI can best answer these typical clinical questions. However, ultrasound elastography seems to be suitable for the detection of significant prostate cancer as well. The structured reporting system for multiparametric MRI of the prostate according to PI-RADS Version 1 led to improved and reproducible diagnosis of prostate cancer. The new PI-RADS Version 2 aims to minimize the limitations of Version 1 and make PI‐RADS standardization more globally acceptable.

Key Points:

• The detection, staging, and active monitoring of prostate cancer are common clinical questions.

• The best method for answering these questions is multiparametric MRI.

• Ultrasound elastography also seems to be suitable for the detection of significant prostate cancer.

• The new PI-RADS Version 2 claims to eliminate the limitations of PI-RADS Version 1 and to allow globally recognized standardized diagnostic reporting.

Citation Format:

• Franiel T, Asbach P, Teichgräber U et al. Bildgebung der Prostata – Ein Update. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2015; 187: 751 – 759

Zusammenfassung

Neue technische und klinische Entwicklungen auf dem Gebiet der Ultraschalldiagnostik und auf dem Gebiet der Magnetresonanztomografie haben die Detektion, Lokalisation und Staging sowie die aktive Überwachung des Prostatakarzinoms stark verbessert. Die beste Methode für diese typischen Fragestellungen ist die multiparametrische MRT. Die Ultraschallelastografie scheint ebenfalls für den Nachweis signifikanter Karzinome geeignet zu sein. Die strukturierte Befundung der multiparametrischen MRT der Prostata nach PI-RADS Version 1 führte zu einer verbesserten und nachvollziehbareren Diagnostik des Prostatakarzinoms. Die neue PI-RADS Version 2 versucht, die Limitationen der Version 1 zu minimieren und eine global akzeptierte Standardisierung zu erreichen.

Key words

prostate - MR imaging - ultrasound

• References

• 1 Baras N, Barnes B, Bertz J et al. Übersicht zu den Krebssterbefällen. In: Krebs in Deutschland. Robert Koch Institut(Hrsg). Berlin: 2013. 17.
• 2 Brock M, von Bodman C, Sommerer F et al. Comparison of real-time elastography with grey-scale ultrasonography for detection of organ-confined prostate cancer and extra capsular extension: a prospective analysis using whole mount sections after radical prostatectomy. BJU international 2011; 108: E217-E222
• 3 Wells PN, Liang HD. Medical ultrasound: imaging of soft tissue strain and elasticity. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface/the Royal Society 2011; 8: 1521-1549
• 4 Langer DL, van der Kwast TH, Evans AJ et al. Intermixed normal tissue within prostate cancer: effect on MR imaging measurements of apparent diffusion coefficient and T2--sparse versus dense cancers. Radiology 2008; 249: 900-908
• 5 Junker D, Schafer G, Aigner F et al. Potentials and limitations of real-time elastography for prostate cancer detection: a whole-mount step section analysis. TheScientificWorldJournal 2012; 2012: 193213
• 6 Pallwein L, Mitterberger M, Struve P et al. Comparison of sonoelastography guided biopsy with systematic biopsy: impact on prostate cancer detection. European radiology 2007; 17: 2278-2285
• 7 Salomon G, Drews N, Autier P et al. Incremental detection rate of prostate cancer by real-time elastography targeted biopsies in combination with a conventional 10-core biopsy in 1024 consecutive patients. BJU international 2014; 113: 548-553
• 8 Nygard Y, Haukaas SA, Halvorsen OJ et al. A positive real-time elastography is an independent marker for detection of high-risk prostate cancers in the primary biopsy setting. BJU international 2014; 113: E90-E97
• 9 Junker D, Schafer G, Kobel C et al. Comparison of real-time elastography and multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a whole-mount step-section analysis. American journal of roentgenology 2014; 202: W263-W269
• 10 Boehm K, Salomon G, Beyer B et al. Shear Wave Elastography for Localization of Prostate Cancer Lesions and Assessment of Elasticity Thresholds: Implications for Targeted Biopsies and Active Surveillance Protocols. J Urol 2015; 193: 794
• 11 Schimmoller L, Quentin M, Arsov C et al. Predictive power of the ESUR scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis verified with targeted MR-guided in-bore biopsy. Eur J Radiol 2014; 83: 2103-2108
• 12 Albrecht T, Blomley M, Bolondi L et al. Guidelines for the use of contrast agents in ultrasound. January 2004. Ultraschall in der Medizin 2004; 25: 249-256
• 13 Taverna G, Morandi G, Seveso M et al. Colour Doppler and microbubble contrast agent ultrasonography do not improve cancer detection rate in transrectal systematic prostate biopsy sampling. BJU international 2011; 108: 1723-1727
• 14 Braeckman J, Autier P, Garbar C et al. Computer-aided ultrasonography (HistoScanning): a novel technology for locating and characterizing prostate cancer. BJU international 2008; 101: 293-298
• 15 Javed S, Chadwick E, Edwards AA et al. Does prostate HistoScanning play a role in detecting prostate cancer in routine clinical practice? Results from three independent studies. BJU international 2014; 114: 541-548
• 16 Schiffmann J, Tennstedt P, Fischer J et al. Does HistoScanning predict positive results in prostate biopsy? A retrospective analysis of 1188 sextants of the prostate. World journal of urology 2014; 32: 925-930
• 17 Schiffmann J, Fischer J, Tennstedt P et al. Comparison of prostate cancer volume measured by HistoScanning and final histopathological results. World journal of urology 2014; 32: 939-944
• 18 Loch T. Computerized supported transrectal ultrasound (C-TRUS) in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Der Urologe Ausg A 2004; 43: 1377-1384
• 19 Grabski B, Baeurle L, Loch A et al. Computerized transrectal ultrasound of the prostate in a multicenter setup (C-TRUS-MS): detection of cancer after multiple negative systematic random and in primary biopsies. World journal of urology 2011; 29: 573-579
• 20 Strunk T, Decker G, Willinek W et al. Combination of C-TRUS with multiparametric MRI: potential for improving detection of prostate cancer. World journal of urology 2014; 32: 335-339
• 21 Liu W, Turkbey B, Senegas J et al. Accelerated T2 mapping for characterization of prostate cancer. Magnetic resonance in medicine: official journal of the Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 2011; 65: 1400-1406
• 22 Stejskal EO, Tanner JE. Spin diffusion measurements: spin echos in the presence of a time dependent field gradient. J Chem Phys 1965; 42: 288-292
• 23 Langer DL, van der Kwast TH, Evans AJ et al. Prostate tissue composition and MR measurements: investigating the relationships between ADC, T2, K(trans), v(e), and corresponding histologic features. Radiology 2010; 255: 485-494
• 24 Franiel T, Hamm B, Hricak H. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and pharmacokinetic models in prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 2011; 21: 616-626
• 25 Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL et al. Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999; 10: 223-232
• 26 Franiel T. Multiparametrische Magnetresonanztomografie der Prostata – Technik und klinische Anwendungen. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2011; 183: 607-617
• 27 Roethke MC, Kuru TH, Schultze S et al. Evaluation of the ESUR PI-RADS scoring system for multiparametric MRI of the prostate with targeted MR/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy at 3.0 Tesla. Eur Radiol 2014; 24: 344-352
• 28 Thompson JE, Moses D, Shnier R et al. Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guided Diagnostic Biopsy Detects Significant Prostate Cancer and could Reduce Unnecessary Biopsies and Over Detection: A Prospective Study. J Urol 2014; 192: 67-74
• 29 Franiel T, Stephan C, Erbersdobler A et al. Areas suspicious for prostate cancer: MR-guided biopsy in patients with at least one transrectal US-guided biopsy with a negative finding – multiparametric MR imaging for detection and biopsy planning. Radiology 2011; 259: 162-172
• 30 Pokorny MR, de Rooij M, Duncan E et al. Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. Eur Urol 2014; 66: 22-29
• 31 de Rooij M, Crienen S, Witjes JA et al. Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR-guided targeted biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in diagnosing prostate cancer: a modelling study from a health care perspective. Eur Urol 2014; 66: 430-436
• 32 Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 2015; 313: 390-397
• 33 Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T et al. Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology 2011; 259: 775-784
• 34 Beyersdorff D, Lüdemann L, Dietz E et al. Dynamische kontrastmittelgestützte MRT der Prostata: Vergleich von zwei Auswerteverfahren. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2011; 183: 456-461
• 35 Sonnad SS, Langlotz CP, Schwartz JS. Accuracy of MR imaging for staging prostate cancer: a meta-analysis to examine the effect of technologic change. Acad Radiol 2001; 8: 149-157
• 36 Hricak H, Wang L, Wei DC et al. The role of preoperative endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in the decision regarding whether to preserve or resect neurovascular bundles during radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer 2004; 100: 2655-2663
• 37 Graham J, Kirkbride P, Cann K et al. Prostate cancer: summary of updated NICE guidance. Bmj 2014; 348: f7524
• 38 Hambrock T, Somford DM, Hoeks C et al. Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. J Urol 2010; 183: 520-527
• 39 Vargas HA, Akin O, Shukla-Dave A et al. Performance characteristics of MR imaging in the evaluation of clinically low-risk prostate cancer: a prospective study. Radiology 2012; 265: 478-487
• 40 Sack I, Fischer T, Thomas A et al. Magnetic resonance elastography of the liver. Der Radiologe 2012; 52: 738-744
• 41 Singh S, Venkatesh SK, Wang Z et al. Diagnostic Performance of Magnetic Resonance Elastography in Staging Liver Fibrosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 13: 440-451
• 42 Sahebjavaher RS, Nir G, Honarvar M et al. MR elastography of prostate cancer: quantitative comparison with histopathology and repeatability of methods. NMR in biomedicine 2015; 28: 124-139
• 43 Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 746-757
• 44 Röthke M, Blondin D, Schlemmer HP et al. PI-RADS-Klassifikation: Strukturiertes Befundungsschema für die MRT der Prostata. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2013; 185: 253-261
• 45 Schimmoller L, Quentin M, Arsov C et al. MR-sequences for prostate cancer diagnostics: validation based on the PI-RADS scoring system and targeted MR-guided in-bore biopsy. Eur Radiol 2014; 24: 2582-2589
• 46 Renard-Penna R, Mozer P, Cornud F et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System and Likert Scoring System: Multiparametric MR Imaging Validation Study to Screen Patients for Initial Biopsy. Radiology 2015; 275: 458-468
• 47 Schimmoller L, Quentin M, Arsov C et al. Inter-reader agreement of the ESUR score for prostate MRI using in-bore MRI-guided biopsies as the reference standard. Eur Radiol 2013; 23: 3185-3190
• 48 American College of Radiology. MR Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.0. from http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/PIRADS/