Download PDF
Rofo 2015; 187(09): 751-759
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1553162
Review
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Prostate Imaging – An Update

Bildgebung der Prostata – Ein Update
T. Franiel
1   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Jena, Germany
,
P. Asbach
2   Department of Radiology, Campus Benjamin Franklin, University Medicine Berlin, Germany
,
U. Teichgräber
1   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Jena, Germany
,
B. Hamm
2   Department of Radiology, Campus Benjamin Franklin, University Medicine Berlin, Germany
,
S. Foller
3   Department of Urology, University Hospital Jena, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

23 February 2015

25 April 2015

Publication Date:
26 June 2015 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

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

Deutscher Artikel/German Article

 

  • 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.
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Loch T. Computerized supported transrectal ultrasound (C-TRUS) in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Der Urologe Ausg A 2004; 43: 1377-1384
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Franiel T. Multiparametrische Magnetresonanztomografie der Prostata – Technik und klinische Anwendungen. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2011; 183: 607-617
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Beyersdorff D, Lüdemann L, Dietz E et al. Dynamische kontrastmittelgestützte MRT der Prostata: Vergleich von zwei Auswerteverfahren. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2011; 183: 456-461
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Graham J, Kirkbride P, Cann K et al. Prostate cancer: summary of updated NICE guidance. Bmj 2014; 348: f7524
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Sack I, Fischer T, Thomas A et al. Magnetic resonance elastography of the liver. Der Radiologe 2012; 52: 738-744
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 746-757
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 American College of Radiology. MR Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.0. from http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/PIRADS/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar