Prostate cancer: value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection--histopathologic correlation.

PURPOSE To determine utility of multiparametric imaging performed at 3 T for detection of prostate cancer by using T2-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, MR spectroscopy, and dynamic contrast material-enhanced MR imaging, with whole-mount pathologic findings as reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS This prospectively designed, HIPAA-compliant, single-institution study was approved by the local institutional review board. Seventy consecutive patients (mean age, 60.4 years; mean prostate-specific antigen level, 5.47 ng/mL [5.47 microg/L]; range, 1-19.9 ng/mL [1-19.9 microg/L]) were included; informed consent was obtained from each patient. All patients had biopsy-proved prostate cancer, with a median Gleason score of 7 (range, 6-9). Images were obtained by using a combination of six-channel cardiac and endorectal coils. MR imaging and pathologic findings were evaluated independently and blinded and then correlated with histopathologic findings by using side-by-side comparison. Analyses were conducted with a raw stringent approach and an alternative neighboring method, which accounted for surgical deformation, shrinkage, and nonuniform slicing factors in pathologic specimens. Generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were used to estimate the predictive value of region-specific, pathologically determined cancer for all three modalities. This approach accounts for the correlation among multiple regions in the same individual. RESULTS For T2-weighted MR imaging, sensitivity and specificity values obtained with stringent approach were 0.42 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36, 0.47) and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.81, 0.86), and for the alternative neighboring approach, sensitivity and specificity values were 0.73 (95% CI: 0.67, 0.78) and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.93), respectively. The combined diagnostic accuracy of T2-weighted MR imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging, and MR spectroscopy for peripheral zone tumors was examined by calculating their predictive value with different combinations of techniques; T2-weighted MR imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging, and MR spectroscopy provided significant independent and additive predictive value when GEEs were used (P < .001, P = .02, P = .002, respectively). CONCLUSION Multiparametric MR imaging (T2-weighted MR imaging, MR spectroscopy, dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging) of the prostate at 3 T enables tumor detection, with reasonable sensitivity and specificity values.

[1]  John Kurhanewicz,et al.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and MR diffusion imaging to distinguish between glandular and stromal prostatic tissues. , 2008, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[2]  D. Regge,et al.  Value of endorectal MRI and MRS in patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels and previous negative biopsies to localize peripheral zone tumours. , 2008, Clinical radiology.

[3]  Benjamin M Yeh,et al.  Peripheral zone prostate cancer: accuracy of different interpretative approaches with MR and MR spectroscopic imaging. , 2008, Radiology.

[4]  Byung Kwan Park,et al.  Value of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging for the Prediction of Prostate Cancer Location at 3T Using a Phased-Array Coil: Preliminary Results , 2007, Investigative radiology.

[5]  T. Scheenen,et al.  Three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopy of human prostate at 3 T without endorectal coil: feasibility. , 2007, Radiology.

[6]  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.

[7]  J. Kurhanewicz,et al.  Prostate cancer: sextant localization with MR imaging, MR spectroscopy, and 11C-choline PET/CT. , 2007, Radiology.

[8]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Prostate cancer: body-array versus endorectal coil MR imaging at 3 T--comparison of image quality, localization, and staging performance. , 2007, Radiology.

[9]  B. K. Park,et al.  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 , 2007, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[10]  V. Pansadoro,et al.  Contribution of the MR spectroscopic imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in the peripheral zone , 2007, Abdominal Imaging.

[11]  Takeo Ishigaki,et al.  Prostate cancer detection with 3-T MRI: comparison of diffusion-weighted and T2-weighted imaging. , 2007, European journal of radiology.

[12]  A. Villers,et al.  Dynamic contrast enhanced, pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging of localized prostate cancer for predicting tumor volume: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[13]  H. Huisman,et al.  Prostate cancer localization with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging. , 2006, Radiology.

[14]  F. Rojo,et al.  Study of microvessel density and the expression of the angiogenic factors VEGF, bFGF and the receptors Flt-1 and FLK-1 in benign, premalignant and malignant prostate tissues. , 2006, Histology and histopathology.

[15]  G. Ligabue,et al.  Comparative Evaluation Between External Phased Array Coil at 3 T and Endorectal Coil at 1.5 T: Preliminary Results , 2006, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[16]  C. Kim,et al.  Localization of Prostate Cancer Using 3T MRI: Comparison of T2-Weighted and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Imaging , 2006, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[17]  J Alfred Witjes,et al.  Staging prostate cancer with dynamic contrast-enhanced endorectal MR imaging prior to radical prostatectomy: experienced versus less experienced readers. , 2005, Radiology.

[18]  M. Kattan,et al.  Correlation of proton MR spectroscopic imaging with gleason score based on step-section pathologic analysis after radical prostatectomy. , 2005, Radiology.

[19]  M. Cooperberg,et al.  Time trends in clinical risk stratification for prostate cancer: implications for outcomes (data from CaPSURE). , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[20]  Silvia D. Chang,et al.  Prostate cancer tumor volume: measurement with endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging. , 2002, Radiology.

[21]  R. Franklin,et al.  The Intermediary Metabolism of the Prostate: A Key to Understanding the Pathogenesis and Progression of Prostate Malignancy , 2000, Oncology.

[22]  J Kurhanewicz,et al.  Prostate cancer: prediction of extracapsular extension with endorectal MR imaging and three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging. , 1999, Radiology.

[23]  P. Carroll,et al.  Three-dimensional H-1 MR spectroscopic imaging of the in situ human prostate with high (0.24-0.7-cm3) spatial resolution. , 1996, Radiology.

[24]  K Y Liang,et al.  Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. , 1986, Biometrics.