Top

Published in:

01-04-2014 | Original Article

Can high-spatial resolution T2-weighted endorectal MRI rule out clinically significant prostate cancer?

Authors: Matthias C. Roethke, Michaela Kniess, Sascha Kaufmann, Matthias P. Lichy, Heinz-Peter Schlemmer, Arnulf Stenzl, David Schilling

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 2/2014

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate whether clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) can be ruled out by high-spatial resolution T2-weighted endorectal MRI (eMRI) in a cohort of patients with biopsy-proven PCa.

Patients and methods

A retrospective analysis was carried out for consecutive patients who underwent 1.5 Tesla eMRI for local staging before open radical prostatectomy. The cohort was dichotomized into patients with apparent or inapparent tumour on eMRI. The results were compared with final histopathology, and an analysis for presence of clinically significance PCa was performed.

Results

A total of 385 patients were included in the study; in 85 patients (22 %), no apparent lesion suspicious for PCa was detected on eMRI, still final pathology revealed clinically significant PCa in 61 of these patients (72 %). In contrast, 256 (85 %) of the 300 patients with apparent tumour in eMRI harboured clinically significant PCa. eMRI could not differentiate clinically significant from insignificant PCa in neither of the groups (p > 0.6).

Conclusions

Presence of clinically significant cancer cannot be excluded by high-resolution 1.5 Tesla T2-weighted eMRI. The results of the study suggest that the role of T2-weighted eMRI for selecting patients suitable for AS is limited.

Dugan JA, Bostwick DG, Myers RP, Qian J, Bergstralh EJ, Oesterling JE (1996) The definition and preoperative prediction of clinically insignificant prostate cancer. JAMA 275(4):288–294PubMedCrossRef

Bastian PJ, Carter BH, Bjartell A, Seitz M, Stanislaus P, Montorsi F, Stief CG, Schroder F (2009) Insignificant prostate cancer and active surveillance: from definition to clinical implications. Eur Urol 55(6):1321–1330. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2009.02.028 PubMedCrossRef

Wong LM, Neal DE, Johnston RB, Shah N, Sharma N, Warren AY, Hovens CM, Goldenberg SL, Gleave ME, Costello AJ, Corcoran NM (2012) International multicentre study examining selection criteria for active surveillance in men undergoing radical prostatectomy. Br J Cancer 107(9):1467–1473. doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.400 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Xylinas E, Yates DR, Renard-Penna R, Seringe E, Bousquet JC, Comperat E, Bitker MO, Grenier P, Roupret M (2011) Role of pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging in staging of prostate cancer specifically in patients diagnosed with clinically locally advanced tumours by digital rectal examination. World J Urol. doi:10.1007/s00345-011-0811-z

Roethke MC, Lichy MP, Kniess M, Werner MK, Claussen CD, Stenzl A, Schlemmer HP, Schilling D (2012) Accuracy of preoperative endorectal MRI in predicting extracapsular extension and influence on neurovascular bundle sparing in radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. doi:10.1007/s00345-012-0826-0

Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, Yakar D, Somford DM, Heijmink SW, Scheenen TW, Vos PC, Huisman H, van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Heerschap A, Futterer JJ (2011) Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 261(1):46–66. doi:10.1148/radiol.11091822 PubMedCrossRef

Vargas HA, Akin O, Afaq A, Goldman D, Zheng J, Moskowitz CS, Shukla-Dave A, Eastham J, Scardino P, Hricak H (2012) Magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of clinically low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 188(5):1732–1738. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.07.024 PubMedCrossRef

Ploussard G, Xylinas E, Durand X, Ouzaid I, Allory Y, Bouanane M, Abbou CC, Salomon L, de la Taille A (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging does not improve the prediction of misclassification of prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance when the most stringent selection criteria are based on the saturation biopsy scheme. BJU Int 108(4):513–517. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09974.x PubMedCrossRef

Cabrera AR, Coakley FV, Westphalen AC, Lu Y, Zhao S, Shinohara K, Carroll PR, Kurhanewicz J (2008) Prostate cancer: is inapparent tumor at endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging a favorable prognostic finding in patients who select active surveillance? Radiology 247(2):444–450. doi:10.1148/radiol.2472070770 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

10.

Guzzo TJ, Resnick MJ, Canter DJ, Bivalacqua TJ, Rosen MA, Bergey MR, Magerfleisch L, Tomazewski JE, Wein AJ, Malkowicz SB (2012) Endorectal T2-weighted MRI does not differentiate between favorable and adverse pathologic features in men with prostate cancer who would qualify for active surveillance. Urol Oncol 30(3):301–305. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2010.08.023 PubMedCrossRef

11.

Roethke M, Anastasiadis AG, Lichy M, Werner M, Wagner P, Kruck S, Claussen CD, Stenzl A, Schlemmer HP, Schilling D (2012) MRI-guided prostate biopsy detects clinically significant cancer: analysis of a cohort of 100 patients after previous negative TRUS biopsy. World J Urol 30(2):213–218. doi:10.1007/s00345-011-0675-2 PubMedCrossRef

12.

Wang L (2009) Incremental value of magnetic resonance imaging in the advanced management of prostate cancer. World J Radiol 1(1):3–14. doi:10.4329/wjr.v1.i1.3 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

13.

Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, Akin O, Yu C, Zakian KL, Udo K, Scardino PT, Eastham J, Kattan MW (2012) Preoperative nomograms incorporating magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer. BJU Int 109(9):1315–1322. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10612.x PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

14.

Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, Kattan MW, Pucar D, Kuroiwa K, Chen HN, Spector J, Koutcher JA, Zakian KL, Scardino PT (2007) The utility of magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for predicting insignificant prostate cancer: an initial analysis. BJU Int 99(4):786–793. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.06689.x PubMedCrossRef

15.

Futterer JJ, Engelbrecht MR, Jager GJ, Hartman RP, King BF, Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa CA, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO (2007) Prostate cancer: comparison of local staging accuracy of pelvic phased-array coil alone versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Local staging accuracy of prostate cancer using endorectal coil MR imaging. Eur Radiol 17(4):1055–1065. doi:10.1007/s00330-006-0418-8

16.

Park BK, Kim B, Kim CK, Lee HM, Kwon GY (2007) Comparison of phased-array 3.0-T and endorectal 1.5-T magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of local staging accuracy for prostate cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr 31(4):534–538. doi:10.1097/01.rct.0000250108.85799.e1 PubMedCrossRef

17.

Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, Rouviere O, Logager V, Futterer JJ (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22(4):746–757. doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

18.

Margel D, Yap SA, Lawrentschuk N, Klotz L, Haider M, Hersey K, Finelli A, Zlotta A, Trachtenberg J, Fleshner N (2012) Impact of multiparametric endorectal coil prostate magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates: a prospective cohort study. J Urol 187(4):1247–1252. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.11.112 PubMedCrossRef

19.

Colleselli D, Schilling D, Lichy MP, Hennenlotter J, Vogel UH, Krueger SA, Kuehs U, Schlemmer HP, Stenzl A, Schwentner C (2010) Topographical sensitivity and specificity of endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection. Urol Int 84:388–394PubMedCrossRef

Title: Can high-spatial resolution T2-weighted endorectal MRI rule out clinically significant prostate cancer?
Authors: Matthias C. Roethke
Michaela Kniess
Sascha Kaufmann
Matthias P. Lichy
Heinz-Peter Schlemmer
Arnulf Stenzl
David Schilling
Publication date: 01-04-2014
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 2/2014
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1106-3

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Can high-spatial resolution T2-weighted endorectal MRI rule out clinically significant prostate cancer?

Abstract

Purpose

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2014

Comparison of post-operative intravesical recurrence and oncological outcomes after open versus laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma

Development and validation of nomograms to predict the recovery of urinary continence after radical prostatectomy: comparisons between immediate, early, and late continence

The surgical approach can be determined from the pathological specimen obtained after open or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy after more than 5 years

Quantification of median lobe protrusion and its impact on the base surgical margin status during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy

Comparison of oncologic outcomes after radical prostatectomy in men diagnosed with prostate cancer with PSA levels below and above 4 ng/mL