Magnetic resonance imaging in the early detection of prostate cancer and review of the literature on magnetic resonance imaging-stratified clinical pathways

References

• WHO. Prostate cancer: estimated Incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2012. Cancer, IAfRo. (Ed.^(Eds). http://globocan.iarc.fr/old/FactSheets/cancers/prostate-new.asp
   Google Scholar
• Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Barrows GH, et al. Prostate cancer and the will rogers phenomenon. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97(17):1248–1253.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European randomised study of screening for prostate cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet. 2014;384(9959):2027–2035.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Onik G, Miessau M, Bostwick DG. Three-dimensional prostate mapping biopsy has a potentially significant impact on prostate cancer management. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(26):4321–4326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu Y, Ahmed HU, Carter T, et al. A biopsy simulation study to assess the accuracy of several transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-biopsy strategies compared with template prostate mapping biopsies in patients who have undergone radical prostatectomy. BJU International. 2012;110(6):812–820.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen MS, Hanley RS, Kurteva T, et al. Comparing the Gleason prostate biopsy and Gleason prostatectomy grading system: the Lahey Clinic Medical Center experience and an international meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2008;54(2):371–381.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bott SR, Young MP, Kellett MJ, et al. Contributors to the UCLHTRPD. Anterior prostate cancer: is it more difficult to diagnose? BJU International. 2002;89(9):886–889.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Radtke JP, Schwab C, Wolf MB, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy for index tumor detection: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimen. European Urology. 2016;70(5):846–853.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Appayya MB, Johnston EW, Punwani S. The role of multi-parametric MRI in loco-regional staging of men diagnosed with early prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol. 2015;25(6):510–517.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latifoltojar A, Dikaios N, Ridout A, et al. Evolution of multi-parametric MRI quantitative parameters following transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2015;18(4):343–351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cerantola Y, Dragomir A, Tanguay S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy in diagnosing prostate cancer. Urologic Oncology. 2016;34(3):119 e111–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hricak H, Dooms GC, McNeal JE, et al. MR imaging of the prostate gland: normal anatomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1987;148(1):51–58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang L, Mazaheri Y, Zhang J, et al. Assessment of biologic aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of MR signal intensity with gleason grade after radical prostatectomy. Radiology. 2008;246(1):168–176.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoang Dinh A, Melodelima C, Souchon R, et al. Quantitative analysis of prostate multiparametric MR images for detection of aggressive prostate cancer in the peripheral zone: a multiple imager study. Radiology. 2016;280(1):117–127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cruz M, Tsuda K, Narumi Y, et al. Characterization of low-intensity lesions in the peripheral zone of prostate on pre-biopsy endorectal coil MR imaging. Eur Radiol. 2002;12(2):357–365.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheidler J, Hricak H, Vigneron DB, et al. Prostate cancer: localization with three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging–clinicopathologic study. Radiology. 1999;213(2):473–480.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quint LE, Van Erp JS, Bland PH, et al. Carcinoma of the prostate: MR images obtained with body coils do not accurately reflect tumor volume. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991;156(3):511–516.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y, et al. Prostate cancer: relationships between postbiopsy hemorrhage and tumor detectability at MR diagnosis. Radiology. 2008;248(2):531–539.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69(1):16–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White S, Hricak H, Forstner R, et al. Prostate cancer: effect of postbiopsy hemorrhage on interpretation of MR images. Radiology. 1995;195(2):385–390.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourne R, Panagiotaki E. Limitations and prospects for diffusion-weighted MRI of the prostate. Diagnostics (Basel). 2016;6:2.
   Google Scholar
• Kim CK, Park BK, Kim B. High-b-value diffusion-weighted imaging at 3 T to detect prostate cancer: comparisons between b values of 1,000 and 2,000 s/mm2. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(1):W33–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metens T, Miranda D, Absil J, et al. What is the optimal b value in diffusion-weighted MR imaging to depict prostate cancer at 3T? Eur Radiol. 2012;22(3):703–709.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miao H, Fukatsu H, Ishigaki T. Prostate cancer detection with 3-T MRI: comparison of diffusion-weighted and T2-weighted imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2007;61(2):297–302.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isebaert S, Van Den Bergh L, Haustermans K, et al. Multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer localization in correlation to whole-mount histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;37(6):1392–1401.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selnaes KM, Heerschap A, Jensen LR, et al. Peripheral zone prostate cancer localization by multiparametric magnetic resonance at 3 T: unbiased cancer identification by matching to histopathology. Invest Radiol. 2012;47(11):624–633.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metzger GJ, Kalavagunta C, Spilseth B, et al. Detection of prostate cancer: quantitative multiparametric mr imaging models developed using registered correlative histopathology. Radiology. 2016;279(3):805–816.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franiel T, Ludemann L, Rudolph B, et al. Prostate MR imaging: tissue characterization with pharmacokinetic volume and blood flow parameters and correlation with histologic parameters. Radiology. 2009;252(1):101–108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franiel T, Ludemann L, Rudolph B, et al. Differentiation of prostate cancer from normal prostate tissue: role of hotspots in pharmacokinetic MRI and histologic evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(3):675–681.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zelhof B, Lowry M, Rodrigues G, et al. Description of magnetic resonance imaging-derived enhancement variables in pathologically confirmed prostate cancer and normal peripheral zone regions. BJU Int. 2009;104(5):621–627.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Futterer JJ, Heijmink SW, Scheenen TW, et al. Prostate cancer localization with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology. 2006;241(2):449–458.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. European Radiology. 2012;22(4):746–757.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gulani V, Calamante F, Shellock FG, et al. International society for magnetic resonance in M. gadolinium deposition in the brain: summary of evidence and recommendations. Lancet Neurol. 2017;16(7):564–570.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin G, Chung YL. Current opportunities and challenges of magnetic resonance spectroscopy, positron emission tomography, and mass spectrometry imaging for mapping cancer metabolism in vivo. Biomed Res Int. 2014;625095:2014.
   Google Scholar
• Chen H, Sutedjo J, Wang L, et al. Prostate cancer magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging at 1.5 and 3.0 T: a meta-analysis. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2016;15(4):625–631.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson SJ, Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron DB, et al. Metabolic imaging of patients with prostate cancer using hyperpolarized [1-(1, 3)C]pyruvate. Sci Transl Med. 2013;5(198):198ra108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston R, Wong LM, Warren A, et al. The role of 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging in staging prostate cancer. ANZ J Surg. 2013;83(4):234–238.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouviere O, Hartman RP, Lyonnet D. Prostate MR imaging at high-field strength: evolution or revolution? Eur Radiol. 2006;16(2):276–284.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhl CK, Traber F, Schild HH. Whole-body high-field-strength (3.0-T) MR imaging in clinical practice. Part I. Technical considerations and clinical applications. Radiology. 2008;246(3):675–696.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, et al. Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology. 2011;261(1):46–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaermann T, Crelier G, Pruessmann KP, et al. SENSE-DTI at 3 T. Magn Reson Med. 2004;51(2):230–236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turkbey B, Pinto PA, Mani H, et al. Prostate cancer: value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection–histopathologic correlation. Radiology. 2010;255(1):89–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Futterer JJ, et al. Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202(2):343–351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, et al. Diagnostic performance of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 for detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis. European Urology. 2017;72(2):177–188.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kasel-Seibert M, Lehmann T, Aschenbach R, et al. Assessment of PI-RADS v2 for the detection of prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(4):726–731.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polanec S, Helbich TH, Bickel H, et al. Head-to-head comparison of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v1. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(6):1125–1131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feng ZY, Wang L, Min XD, et al. Prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: prostate imaging reporting and data system version 1 versus version 2. Chin Med J (Engl). 2016;129(20):2451–2459.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehralivand S, Bednarova S, Shih JH, et al. Prospective Evaluation of PI-RADS™ Version 2 Using the International Society of Urological Pathology Prostate Cancer Grade Group System. J Urol. 2017 Sep;198(3):583–590.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mertan FV, Greer MD, Shih JH, et al. Prospective evaluation of the prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 for prostate cancer detection. J Urol. 2016;196(3):690–696.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenkrantz AB, Kim S, Lim RP, et al. Prostate cancer localization using multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) and Likert scales. Radiology. 2013;269(2):482–492.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenkrantz AB, Lim RP, Haghighi M, et al. Comparison of interreader reproducibility of the prostate imaging reporting and data system and Likert scales for evaluation of multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201(4):W612–618.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(2):458–468.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vache T, Bratan F, Mege-Lechevallier F, et al. Characterization of prostate lesions as benign or malignant at multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of three scoring systems in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. Radiology. 2014;272(2):446–455.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choy B, Pearce SM, Anderson BB, et al. Prognostic significance of percentage and architectural types of contemporary gleason pattern 4 prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40(10):1400–1406.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389(10071):815–822.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simmons LAM, Kanthabalan A, Arya M, et al. The PICTURE study: diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI in men requiring a repeat prostate biopsy. Br J Cancer. 2017;116(9):1159–1165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Futterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P, et al. Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? a systematic review of the literature. European Urology. 2015;68(6):1045–1053.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moldovan PC, Van den Broeck T, Sylvester R, et al. What Is the Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Excluding Prostate Cancer at Biopsy? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol. 2017 Aug;72(2):250–266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park BK, Park JW, Park SY, et al. Prospective evaluation of 3-T MRI performed before initial transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with high prostate-specific antigen and no previous biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(5):W876–881.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Sciarra A, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging vs. standard care in men being evaluated for prostate cancer: a randomized study. Urologic Oncology. 2015;33(1):17 e11–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baco E, Rud E, Eri LM, et al. A randomized controlled trial to assess and compare the outcomes of two-core prostate biopsy guided by fused magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound images and traditional 12-core systematic biopsy. European Urology. 2016;69(1):149–156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tonttila PP, Lantto J, Paakko E, et al. Prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis in biopsy-naive men with suspected prostate cancer based on elevated prostate-specific antigen values: results from a randomized prospective blinded controlled trial. European Urology. 2016;69(3):419–425.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taverna G, Bozzini G, Grizzi F, et al. Endorectal multiparametric 3-tesla magnetic resonance imaging associated with systematic cognitive biopsies does not increase prostate cancer detection rate: a randomized prospective trial. World J Urol. 2016;34(6):797–803.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Blondin D, et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided in-bore biopsy to MRI-ultrasound fusion and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsies. European Urology. 2015;68(4):713–720.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porpiglia F, Manfredi M, Mele F, et al. Diagnostic Pathway with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Standard Pathway: Results from a Randomized Prospective Study in Biopsy-naïve Patients with Suspected Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2017 Aug;72(2):282–288.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oberlin DT, Casalino DD, Miller FH, et al. Diagnostic value of guided biopsies: fusion and cognitive-registration magnetic resonance imaging versus conventional ultrasound biopsy of the prostate. Urology. 2016;92:75–79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee DJ, Recabal P, Sjoberg DD, et al. Comparative effectiveness of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging ultrasound fusion software and visual targeting: a prospective study. J Urol. 2016;196(3):697–702.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, et al. A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial. European Urology. 2014;66(2):343–351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ian Donaldson SH, Barratt D, Yipeng H, et al. MP33–20 The Smarttarget biopsy trial: a prospective paired blinded trial with randomisation to compare visual-estimation and image-fusion targeted prostate biopsies. J Urol. 2017;197(4):e425.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mager R, Brandt MP, Borgmann H, et al. From novice to expert: analyzing the learning curve for MRI-transrectal ultrasonography fusion-guided transrectal prostate biopsy. Int Urol Nephrol. 2017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaziev G, Wadhwa K, Barrett T, et al. Defining the learning curve for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate using MRI-transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) fusion-guided transperineal prostate biopsies as a validation tool. BJU International. 2016;117(1):80–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. European Urology. 2014;66(3):430–436.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mowatt G, Scotland G, Boachie C, et al. The diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance spectroscopy and enhanced magnetic resonance imaging techniques in aiding the localisation of prostate abnormalities for biopsy: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17(20):vii-xix, 1–281.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venderink W, Govers TM, De Rooij M, et al. Cost-effectiveness comparison of imaging-guided prostate biopsy techniques: systematic transrectal ultrasound, direct in-bore MRI, and image fusion. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(5):1058–1063.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pahwa S, Schiltz NK, Ponsky LE, et al. Cost-effectiveness of MR Imaging-guided Strategies for Detection of Prostate Cancer in Biopsy-Naive Men. Radiology. 2017 Oct;285(1):157-166. Pahwa S, Schiltz NK, Ponsky LE, et al. Cost-effectiveness of MR Imaging-guided Strategies for Detection of Prostate Cancer in Biopsy-Naive Men. Radiology. 2017 Oct;285(1):157–166.
   Google Scholar
• Turkbey B, Choyke PL. Multiparametric MRI and prostate cancer diagnosis and risk stratification. Curr Opin Urol. 2012;22(4):310–315.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. European Urology. 2013;64(6):876–892.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ung JO, Richie JP, Chen MH, et al. Evolution of the presentation and pathologic and biochemical outcomes after radical prostatectomy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed during the PSA era. Urology. 2002;60(3):458–463.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(4):390–397.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, et al. 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(3):203–213.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clinical Oncologyl. 2015;33(3):272–277.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klemann N, Roder MA, Helgstrand JT, et al. Risk of prostate cancer diagnosis and mortality in men with a benign initial transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy set: a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(2):221–229.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muthigi A, George AK, Sidana A, et al. Missing the mark: prostate cancer upgrading by systematic biopsy over magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. J Urol. 2017;197(2):327–334.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen NL, Barrett T, Koo B, et al. The influence of prostate-specific antigen density on positive and negative predictive values of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect Gleason score 7–10 prostate cancer in a repeat biopsy setting. BJU International. 2017;119(5):724–730.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdi H, Zargar H, Goldenberg SL, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer in patients with prior negative biopsy results. Urologic Oncology. 2015;33(4):165 e161–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filson CP, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, et al. Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: the role of systematic and targeted biopsies. Cancer. 2016;122(6):884–892.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Washino S, Okochi T, Saito K, et al. Combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density predicts biopsy outcome in prostate biopsy naive patients. BJU International. 2017;119(2):225–233.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar