State-of-the-art Prostate Imaging

TUNACI, ATADAN; Ertürk, Şükrü Mehmet; Salmaslioglu, Artur; Ayyıldız, Hakan

doi:10.14744/SEMB.2023.77910

State-of-the-art Prostate Imaging

Hakan AYYILDIZ, (İstanbul Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Radyoloji Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul, Türkiye)

ARTÜR SALMASLIOĞLU, (İstanbul Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Radyoloji Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul, Türkiye)

Atadan TUNACI, (İstanbul Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Radyoloji Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul, Türkiye)

Şükrü Mehmet ERTÜRK (İstanbul Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Radyoloji Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul, Türkiye)

Şişli Etfal Hastanesi Tıp Bülteni

1 0

Yıl: 2023 Cilt: 57 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 153 - 162 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.14744/SEMB.2023.77910 İndeks Tarihi: 10-07-2023

State-of-the-art Prostate Imaging

Öz:

Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers in men. In addition to methods such as prostate-specific antigen test, digital rectal examination, and transrectal ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging has an important role for accurate and repro- ducible diagnosis. However, guidance in targeted biopsies and recent use in determining localization for treatment increase its im- portance. Due to technical difficulties, patient tolerance, and differences in interpretation, the prostate imaging reporting and data system recommends preparations for the patient and magnetic resonance imaging techniques. However, techniques continue to be developed to improve the diagnosis rate and image quality. In our article, patient preparation before imaging and techniques were tried to be discussed in detail. In addition, current approaches in biparametric magnetic resonance imaging and radiomics and new techniques such as T1 and T2 mapping will be mentioned.

Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Derleme Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al.Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 2015;136:E359−86. [CrossRef ]
2. Catalona WJ, Richie JP, Ahmann FR, Hudson MA, Scardino PT, Flanigan RC, et al.Comparison of digital rectal examination and serum prostate specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer: results of a multicenter clinical trial of 6,630 men. J Urol 1994;151:1283−90. [CrossRef ]
3. Dahm P, Neuberger M, Ilic D. Screening for prostate cancer: shaping the debate on benefits and harms. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013:Ed000067. [CrossRef ]
4. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al.Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017;389:815−22. [CrossRef ]
5. Tan N, Margolis DJ, Lu DY, King KG, Huang J, Reiter RE, et al.Characteristics of detected and missed prostate cancer foci on 3-T multiparametric MRI using an endorectal coil correlated with whole-mount thin-section histopathology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;205:W87-92. [CrossRef ]
6. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al; European Society of Urogenital Radiology. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22:746−57. [CrossRef ]
7. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al.PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 2016;69:16−40. [CrossRef ]
8. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, et al.Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol 2019;76:340−51. [CrossRef ]
9. Ullrich T, Quentin M, Schmaltz AK, Arsov C, Rubbert C, Blondin D, et al.Hyoscine butylbromide significantly decreases motion artefacts and allows better delineation of anatomic structures in mp-MRI of the prostate. Eur Radiol 2018;28:17−23. [CrossRef ]
10. Slough RA, Caglic I, Hansen NL, Patterson AJ, Barrett T. Effect of hyoscine butylbromide on prostate multiparametric MRI anatomical and functional image quality. Clin Radiol 2018;73:e9−216. [CrossRef ]
11. Roethke MC, Kuru TH, Radbruch A, Hadaschik B, Schlemmer HP. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging at 3 Tesla: is administration of hyoscine-N-butyl-bromide mandatory? World J Radiol 2013;5:259−63. [CrossRef ]
12. Coskun M, Mehralivand S, Shih JH, Merino MJ, Wood BJ, Pinto PA, et al.Impact of bowel preparation with Fleet's™ enema on prostate MRI quality. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2020;45:4252−9. [CrossRef]
13. Plodeck V, Radosa CG, Hübner HM, Baldus C, Borkowetz A, Thomas C, et al.Rectal gas-induced susceptibility artefacts on prostate diffusion-weighted MRI with epi read-out at 3.0 T: does a preparatory micro-enema improve image quality? Abdom Radiol 2020;45:4244−51. [CrossRef ]
14. Lim C, Quon J, McInnes M, Shabana WM, El-Khodary M, Schieda N. Does a cleansing enema improve image quality of 3T surface coil multiparametric prostate MRI? J Magn Reson Imaging 2015;42:689−97. [CrossRef ]
15. White S, Hricak H, Forstner R, Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron DB, Zaloudek CJ, et al.Prostate cancer: effect of postbiopsy hemorrhage on interpretation of MR images. Radiology 1995;195:385−90. [CrossRef ]
16. Ko YH, Song PH, Moon KH, Jung HC, Cheon J, Sung DJ. The optimal timing of post-prostate biopsy magnetic resonance imaging to guide nerve-sparing surgery. Asian J Androl 2014;16:280−4. [CrossRef ]
17. Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y, Yamamoto A, Yamashita T, Egashira N, et al.Prostate cancer: relationships between postbiopsy hemorrhage and tumor detectability at MR diagnosis. Radiology 2008;248:531−39. [CrossRef ]
18. Sharif-Afshar AR, Feng T, Koopman S, Nguyen C, Li Q, Shkolyar E, et al.Impact of post prostate biopsy hemorrhage on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Can J Urol 2015;22:7698−702.
19. Choi MH, Jung SE, Park YH, Lee JY, Choi Y-J. Multiparametric MRI of prostate cancer after biopsy: little impact of hemorrhage on tumor staging. Investig Magn Reson Imaging 2017;21:139−47. [CrossRef ]
20. Kabakus IM, Borofsky S, Mertan FV, Greer M, Daar D, Wood BJ, et al.Does abstinence from ejaculation before prostate MRI improve evaluation of the seminal vesicles? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016;207:1205−09. [CrossRef ]
21. Medved M, Sammet S, Yousuf A, Oto A. MR imaging of the prostate and adjacent anatomic structures before, during, and after ejaculation: qualitative and quantitative evaluation. Radiology 2014;271:452−60. [CrossRef ]
22. Purysko AS, Baroni RH, Giganti F, Costa D, Renard-Penna R, Kim CK, et al.PI-RADS version 2.1: a critical review, from the AJR special series on radiology reporting and data systems. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021;216:20−32. [CrossRef ]
23. Lee G, Oto A, Giurcanu M. Prostate MRI: is endorectal coil necessary?-A review. Life (Basel) 2022;12:569. [CrossRef ]
24. Dhatt R, Choy S, Co SJ, Ischia J, Kozlowski P, Harris AC, et al.MRI of the prostate with and without endorectal coil at 3 T: correlation with whole-mount histopathologic Gleason score. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2020;215:133−41. [CrossRef ]
25. Tirumani SH, Suh CH, Kim KW, Shinagare AB, Ramaiya NH, Fennessy FM. Head-to-head comparison of prostate MRI using an endorectal coil versus a non-endorectal coil: meta-analysis of diagnostic performance in staging T3 prostate cancer. Clin Radiol 2020;75:157. [CrossRef ]
26. de Marini P, Cazzato RL, Garnon J, Shaygi B, Koch G, Auloge P, et al.Percutaneous MR-guided prostate cancer cryoablation technical updates and literature review. BJR Open 2019;1:20180043. [CrossRef ]
27. Caglic I, Barrett T. Optimising prostate mpMRI: prepare for success. Clin Radiol 2019;74:831−40. [CrossRef ]
28. Thierfelder KM, Scherr MK, Notohamiprodjo M, Weiß J, Dietrich O, Mueller-Lisse UG, et al.Diffusion-weighted MRI of the prostate: advantages of Zoomed EPI with parallel-transmit-accelerated 2D-selective excitation imaging. Eur Radiol 2014;24:3233−41. [CrossRef ]
29. Brendle C, Martirosian P, Schwenzer NF, Kaufmann S, Kruck S, Kramer U, et al.Diffusion-weighted imaging in the assessment of prostate cancer: comparison of zoomed imaging and conventional technique. Eur J Radiol 2016;85:893−900. [CrossRef ]
30. Tamada T, Ream JM, Doshi AM, Taneja SS, Rosenkrantz AB. Reduced field-of-view diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate at 3 Tesla: comparison with standard echo-planar imaging technique for image quality and tumor assessment. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2017;41:949−56. [CrossRef ]
31. Scheenen TW, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Fütterer JJ. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer management: current status and future perspectives. Invest Radiol 2015;50:594−600. [CrossRef ]
32. Dai E, Zhang Z, Ma X, Dong Z, Li X, Xiong Y, et al.The effects of navigator distortion and noise level on interleaved EPI DWI reconstruction: a comparison between image- and k-space- based method. Magn Reson Med 2018;80:2024−32. [CrossRef ]
33. Rosenkrantz AB, Parikh N, Kierans AS, Kong MX, Babb JS, Taneja SS, et al.Prostate cancer detection using computed very high b-value diffusion-weighted imaging: how high should we go? Acad Radiol 2016;23:704−11. [CrossRef ]
34. Vural M, Ertaş G, Onay A, Acar Ö, EsenT, SağlıcanY, et al.Conspicuity of peripheral zone prostate cancer on computed diffusion- weighted imaging: comparison of cDWI1500, cDWI2000, and cDWI3000. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:768291. [CrossRef ]
35. Zhang K, Shen Y, Zhang X, Ma L, Wang H, An N, et al.Predicting prostate biopsy outcomes: a preliminary investigation on screening with ultrahigh b-value diffusion-weighted imaging as an innovative diagnostic biomarker. PLoS One 2016;11:e0151176. [CrossRef]
36. Tamada T, Dani H, Taneja SS, Rosenkrantz AB. The role of whole- lesion apparent diffusion coefficient analysis for predicting outcomes of prostate cancer patients on active surveillance. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2017;42:2340−45. [CrossRef ]
37. Zhang YD, Wang Q, Wu CJ, Wang XN, Zhang J, Liu H, et al.The histogram analysis of diffusion-weighted intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) imaging for differentiating the Gleason grade of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 2015;25:994−1004. [CrossRef ]
38. Bao J, Wang X, Hu C, Hou J, Dong F, Guo L. Differentiation of prostate cancer lesions in the Transition Zone by diffusion- weighted MRI. Eur J Radiol Open 2017;4:123−28. [CrossRef ]
39. Barbieri S, Brönnimann M, Boxler S, Vermathen P, Thoeny HC. Differentiation of prostate cancer lesions with high and with low Gleason score by diffusion-weighted MRI. Eur Radiol 2017;27:1547−55. [CrossRef ]
40. Toivonen J, Merisaari H, Pesola M, Taimen P, Boström PJ, Pahikkala T, et al.Mathematical models for diffusion-weighted imaging of prostate cancer using b values up to 2000 s/mm(2) : correlation with Gleason score and repeatability of region of interest analysis. Magn Reson Med 2015;74:1116−24. [CrossRef ]
41. Suo S, Chen X, Wu L, Zhang X, Yao Q, Fan Y, et al.Non-Gaussian water diffusion kurtosis imaging of prostate cancer. Magn Reson Imaging 2014;32:421−7. [CrossRef ]
42. de Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Fütterer JJ, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;202:343−51. [CrossRef ]
43. Hagberg GE, Scheffler K. Effect of r₁ and r₂ relaxivity of gadolinium- based contrast agents on the T₁-weighted MR signal at increasing magnetic field strengths. Contrast Media Mol Imaging 2013;8:456−65. [CrossRef ]
44. Turkbey B, Merino MJ, Gallardo EC, Shah V, Aras O, Bernardo M, et al.Comparison of endorectal coil and nonendorectal coil T2W and diffusion-weighted MRI at 3 Tesla for localizing prostate cancer: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014;39:1443−8. [CrossRef ]
45. Port RE, Knopp MV, Hoffmann U, Milker-Zabel S, Brix G. Multicompartment analysis of gadolinium chelate kinetics: blood-tissue exchange in mammary tumors as monitored by dynamic MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:233−41. [CrossRef ]
46. Lavini C, Verhoeff JJ. Reproducibility of the gadolinium concentration measurements and of the fitting parameters of the vascular input function in the superior sagittal sinus in a patient population. Magn Reson Imaging 2010;28:1420−30. [CrossRef ]
47. Alver KH, Yagci AB, Utebey AR, Turk NS, Ufuk F. Comparison of multiparametric and fast mri protocols in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer and a detailed cost analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging 2022;56:1437−47. [CrossRef ]
48. Greenberg JW, Koller CR, Casado C, Triche BL, Krane LS. A narrative review of biparametric MRI (bpMRI) implementation on screening, detection, and the overall accuracy for prostate cancer. Ther Adv Urol 2022;14:17562872221096377. [CrossRef ]
49. Belue MJ, Yilmaz EC, Daryanani A, Turkbey B. Current status of biparametric MRI in prostate cancer diagnosis: literature analysis. Life 2022;12:804. [CrossRef ]
50. Hepp T, Kalmbach L, Kolb M, Martirosian P, Hilbert T, Thaiss WM, et al.T2 mapping for the characterization of prostate lesions. World J Urol 2022;40:1455−61. [CrossRef ]
51. Cutaia G, La Tona G, Comelli A, Vernuccio F, Agnello F, Gagliardo C, et al.Radiomics and prostate MRI: current role and future applications. J Imaging 2021;7:34. [CrossRef ]

APA	Ayyıldız H, Salmaslioglu A, TUNACI A, Ertürk Ş (2023). State-of-the-art Prostate Imaging. , 153 - 162. 10.14744/SEMB.2023.77910
Chicago	Ayyıldız Hakan,Salmaslioglu Artur,TUNACI ATADAN,Ertürk Şükrü Mehmet State-of-the-art Prostate Imaging. (2023): 153 - 162. 10.14744/SEMB.2023.77910
MLA	Ayyıldız Hakan,Salmaslioglu Artur,TUNACI ATADAN,Ertürk Şükrü Mehmet State-of-the-art Prostate Imaging. , 2023, ss.153 - 162. 10.14744/SEMB.2023.77910
AMA	Ayyıldız H,Salmaslioglu A,TUNACI A,Ertürk Ş State-of-the-art Prostate Imaging. . 2023; 153 - 162. 10.14744/SEMB.2023.77910
Vancouver	Ayyıldız H,Salmaslioglu A,TUNACI A,Ertürk Ş State-of-the-art Prostate Imaging. . 2023; 153 - 162. 10.14744/SEMB.2023.77910
IEEE	Ayyıldız H,Salmaslioglu A,TUNACI A,Ertürk Ş "State-of-the-art Prostate Imaging." , ss.153 - 162, 2023. 10.14744/SEMB.2023.77910
ISNAD	Ayyıldız, Hakan vd. "State-of-the-art Prostate Imaging". (2023), 153-162. https://doi.org/10.14744/SEMB.2023.77910

APA	Ayyıldız H, Salmaslioglu A, TUNACI A, Ertürk Ş (2023). State-of-the-art Prostate Imaging. Şişli Etfal Hastanesi Tıp Bülteni, 57(2), 153 - 162. 10.14744/SEMB.2023.77910
Chicago	Ayyıldız Hakan,Salmaslioglu Artur,TUNACI ATADAN,Ertürk Şükrü Mehmet State-of-the-art Prostate Imaging. Şişli Etfal Hastanesi Tıp Bülteni 57, no.2 (2023): 153 - 162. 10.14744/SEMB.2023.77910
MLA	Ayyıldız Hakan,Salmaslioglu Artur,TUNACI ATADAN,Ertürk Şükrü Mehmet State-of-the-art Prostate Imaging. Şişli Etfal Hastanesi Tıp Bülteni, vol.57, no.2, 2023, ss.153 - 162. 10.14744/SEMB.2023.77910
AMA	Ayyıldız H,Salmaslioglu A,TUNACI A,Ertürk Ş State-of-the-art Prostate Imaging. Şişli Etfal Hastanesi Tıp Bülteni. 2023; 57(2): 153 - 162. 10.14744/SEMB.2023.77910
Vancouver	Ayyıldız H,Salmaslioglu A,TUNACI A,Ertürk Ş State-of-the-art Prostate Imaging. Şişli Etfal Hastanesi Tıp Bülteni. 2023; 57(2): 153 - 162. 10.14744/SEMB.2023.77910
IEEE	Ayyıldız H,Salmaslioglu A,TUNACI A,Ertürk Ş "State-of-the-art Prostate Imaging." Şişli Etfal Hastanesi Tıp Bülteni, 57, ss.153 - 162, 2023. 10.14744/SEMB.2023.77910
ISNAD	Ayyıldız, Hakan vd. "State-of-the-art Prostate Imaging". Şişli Etfal Hastanesi Tıp Bülteni 57/2 (2023), 153-162. https://doi.org/10.14744/SEMB.2023.77910