Assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T.

BACKGROUND A challenge in the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) is the accurate assessment of aggressiveness. OBJECTIVE To validate the performance of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate at 3 tesla (T) for the assessment of PCa aggressiveness, with prostatectomy specimens as the reference standard. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS A total of 45 patients with PCa scheduled for prostatectomy were included. This study was approved by the institutional review board; the need for informed consent was waived. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Subjects underwent a clinical MRI protocol including DCE-MRI. Blinded to DCE-images, PCa was indicated on T2-weighted images based on histopathology results from prostatectomy specimens with the use of anatomical landmarks for the precise localization of the tumor. PCa was classified as low-, intermediate-, or high-grade, according to Gleason score. DCE-images were used as an overlay on T2-weighted images; mean and quartile values from semi-quantitative and pharmacokinetic model parameters were extracted per tumor region. Statistical analysis included Spearman's ρ, the Kruskal-Wallis test, and a receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Significant differences were seen for the mean and 75th percentile (p75) values of wash-in (p = 0.024 and p = 0.017, respectively), mean wash-out (p = 0.044), and p75 of transfer constant (K(trans)) (p = 0.035), all between low-grade and high-grade PCa in the peripheral zone. ROC analysis revealed the best discriminating performance between low-grade versus intermediate-grade plus high-grade PCa in the peripheral zone for p75 of wash-in, K(trans), and rate constant (Kep) (area under the curve: 0.72). Due to a limited number of tumors in the transition zone, a definitive conclusion for this region of the prostate could not be drawn. CONCLUSIONS Quantitative parameters (K(trans) and Kep) and semi-quantitative parameters (wash-in and wash-out) derived from DCE-MRI at 3 T have the potential to assess the aggressiveness of PCa in the peripheral zone. P75 of wash-in, K(trans), and Kep offer the best possibility to discriminate low-grade from intermediate-grade plus high-grade PCa.

[1]  J Alfred Witjes,et al.  Microvascularity in transition zone prostate tumors resembles normal prostatic tissue , 2013, The Prostate.

[2]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  In vivo assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging at 3 T with an endorectal coil. , 2011, European urology.

[3]  A. Evans,et al.  Prostate tissue composition and MR measurements: investigating the relationships between ADC, T2, K(trans), v(e), and corresponding histologic features. , 2010, Radiology.

[4]  S. Mancino,et al.  Combined morphological, [1H]-MR spectroscopic and contrast-enhanced imaging of human prostate cancer with a 3-Tesla scanner: preliminary experience , 2008, La radiologia medica.

[5]  Karin Haustermans,et al.  Evaluation of semi-quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI parameters for prostate cancer in correlation to whole-mount histopathology. , 2012, European journal of radiology.

[6]  L. Turnbull,et al.  Description of magnetic resonance imaging‐derived enhancement variables in pathologically confirmed prostate cancer and normal peripheral zone regions , 2009, BJU international.

[7]  S. Shariat,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsy: back to the future. , 2013, European urology.

[8]  C. Lawton,et al.  Screening and Prostate-Cancer Mortality in a Randomized European Study , 2010 .

[9]  H. Huisman,et al.  Accurate estimation of pharmacokinetic contrast‐enhanced dynamic MRI parameters of the prostate , 2001, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[10]  H. Schlemmer,et al.  Can pre-operative contrast-enhanced dynamic MR imaging for prostate cancer predict microvessel density in prostatectomy specimens? , 2004, European Radiology.

[11]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. , 2011, Radiology.

[12]  S. Fosså,et al.  Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population‐based study , 2009, BJU international.

[13]  P. P. Iu,et al.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines. , 2013, European radiology.

[14]  T. Scheenen,et al.  Prostate cancer aggressiveness: in vivo assessment of MR spectroscopy and diffusion-weighted imaging at 3 T. , 2012, Radiology.

[15]  Bernd Hamm,et al.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and pharmacokinetic models in prostate cancer , 2011, European Radiology.

[16]  D P Dearnaley,et al.  Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation with morphology and tumour stage, histological grade and PSA. , 2000, Clinical radiology.

[17]  Tristan Barrett,et al.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer at 3 T: a study of pharmacokinetic parameters. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[18]  Mehdi Moradi,et al.  Multiparametric MRI maps for detection and grading of dominant prostate tumors , 2012, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[19]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Computerized analysis of prostate lesions in the peripheral zone using dynamic contrast enhanced MRI. , 2008, Medical physics.

[20]  H. Ozen,et al.  Increasing the number of biopsies increases the concordance of Gleason scores of needle biopsies and prostatectomy specimens. , 2007, Urologic oncology.

[21]  Thorsten Schlomm,et al.  Prognostic value of microvessel density in prostate cancer: a tissue microarray study , 2010, World Journal of Urology.

[22]  A. Jemal,et al.  Global Cancer Statistics , 2011 .

[23]  J. Fütterer,et al.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012 , 2012, European Radiology.

[24]  Yousef Mazaheri,et al.  Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. , 2011, Radiology.

[25]  A. Oto,et al.  Diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation of quantitative MR parameters with Gleason score and tumor angiogenesis. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[26]  G S Karczmar,et al.  A new method for imaging perfusion and contrast extraction fraction: Input functions derived from reference tissues , 1998, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[27]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. , 2011, Radiology.

[28]  W. I. Tseng,et al.  Washout gradient in dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI is associated with tumor aggressiveness of prostate cancer , 2012, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[29]  M. Knopp,et al.  Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast‐enhanced t1‐weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: Standardized quantities and symbols , 1999, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[30]  P. Choyke,et al.  Prostate cancer: value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection--histopathologic correlation. , 2010, Radiology.

[31]  A. Jemal,et al.  Global cancer statistics , 2011, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[32]  A. Neugut,et al.  Microvessel density in prostate cancer: lack of correlation with tumor grade, pathologic stage, and clinical outcome. , 1999, Urology.