Article information
Abstract
Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality and the most frequently diagnosed male malignant disease among men. The manifestation of PCa ranges from indolent to highly aggressive disease and due to this high variation in PCa progression, the diagnosis and subsequent treatment planning can be challenging. The current diagnostic approach with PSA testing and digital rectal examination followed by transrectal ultrasound biopsies (TRUS-bx) lack in both sensitivity and specificity in PCa detection and offers limited information about the aggressiveness and stage of the cancer. Scientific work supports the rapidly growing use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) as the most sensitive and specific imaging tool for detection, lesion characterization and staging of Pca. Therefore, we carried out an updated review of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the diagnostic prostate cancer reviewing the latest papers published in Pub Med.
Keywords:
Prostate cancer detection
Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging
Diagnosis
Prostate biopsy
Resumen
El cáncer de próstata (CP) es la segunda causa principal de mortalidad por cáncer y la enfermedad diagnosticada con mayor frecuencia en la población masculina. El CP se manifiesta de diversas maneras; desde enfermedad indolente a altamente agresiva. A esto se debe la complejidad de su diagnóstico y de la elección del tratamiento adecuado. El enfoque utilizado actualmente, con pruebas de PSA y examen rectal digital seguido de biopsia transrectal ecodirigida (BTE) carece de sensibilidad y especificidad en la detección de CP y ofrece información limitada sobre la agresividad y el estadio del cáncer. La evidencia científica respalda el creciente uso de la resonancia magnética multiparamétrica (RMmp) como la herramienta de imagen más sensible y específica para la detección, caracterización de lesiones y estadificación del CP. El presente estudio hace una revisión actualizada del rol de la resonancia magnética en el diagnóstico de cáncer de próstata, revisando los últimos artículos publicados en PubMed.
Palabras clave:
Detección de cáncer de próstata
Resonancia magnética multiparamétrica
Diagnóstico
Biopsia de próstata
Article
These are the options to access the full texts of the publication Actas Urológicas Españolas (English Edition)
Subscriber
Purchase
Contact
Phone for subscriptions and reporting of errors
From Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. (GMT + 1) except for the months of July and August which will be from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
Calls from Spain
932 415 960
Calls from outside Spain
+34 932 415 960
E-mail
References
[1]
M. Boniol, P. Boyle, P. Autier, A. Ruffi, P. Perrin.
Critical role of prostate biopsy mortality in the number of years of life gained and lost within a prostate cancer screening programme.
BJU Int., 110 (2012), pp. 1648-1652
[2]
S. Loeb, M.A. Bjurlin, J. Nicholson, T.L. Tammela, D.F. Penson, H.B. Carter, et al.
Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer.
Eur Urol., 65 (2014), pp. 1046-1055
[3]
N. Mottet, R.C.N. van den Bergh, E. Briers, P. Cornford, M. De Santis, S. Fanti, et al.
EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent.
European Association of Urology Guidelines, (2019),
[4]
K. Eichler, et al.
Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review.
J Urol, 175 (2006), pp. 1605
[5]
M. Smeenge, et al.
Role of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) in focal therapy of prostate cancer: report from a Consensus Panel.
BJU Int, 110 (2012), pp. 942
[6]
K.K. Hodge, J.E. McNeal, T.A. Stamey.
Ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the palpably abnormal prostate.
J Urol., 142 (1989), pp. 66-70
[7]
M.S. Cohen, R.S. Hanley, T. Kurteva, R. Ruthazer, M.L. Silverman, A. Sorcini, 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., 54 (2008), pp. 371-381
[8]
J.J. Fütterer, A. Briganti, P. De Visschere, M. Emberton, G. Giannarini, A. Kirkham, et al.
Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A Systematic Review of the Literature.
Eur Urol, 68 (2015), pp. 1045-1053
[9]
Y. Poon, W. Mccallum, M. Henkelman, B. Sutcliffe, A.S. Jewett.
Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate.
Radiology., 154 (1985), pp. 143-149
[10]
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Pros-tate cancer: Diagnosis and management. NICE guideline[NG131]. NICE; 2019. Disponible en: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng131/chapter/Recommendations#assessment-and-diagnosis.
[11]
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCNClinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Prostate Can-cer. NCCN; 2019. Disponible en: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician gls/pdf/prostate.pdf.
[12]
P.C. Moldovan, T. Van den Broeck, R. Sylvester, L. Marconi, J. Bellmunt, R.C.N. van den Bergh, 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, 72 (2017), pp. 250-266
[13]
H.B. Carter, P.C. Albertsen, M.J. Barry, R. Etzioni, S.J. Freedland, K.L. Greene, et al.
Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA guideline.
J Urol, 190 (2013), pp. 419-426
[14]
A. Stabile, F. Giganti, M. Emberton, C.M. Moore.
MRI in prostate cancer diagnosis: do we need to add standard sampling? A review of the last 5 years.
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis., (2018),
[15]
F. Bratan, et al.
Influence of imaging and histological factors on prostate cancer detection and localisation on multiparametric MRI: a prospective study.
Eur Radiol, 23 (2013), pp. 2019
[16]
J.J. Futterer, et al.
Can Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Be Detected with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging? A Systematic Review of the Literature.
Eur Urol, 68 (2015), pp. 1045
[17]
F. Porpiglia, et al.
Diagnostic Pathway with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Standard Pathway: Results from a Randomized Prospective Study in Biopsy-naive Patients with Suspected Prostate Cancer.
Eur Urol, 72 (2017), pp. 282
[18]
H.U. Ahmed, A. El-Shater Bosaily, L.C. Brown, R. Gabe, R. Kaplan, M.K. Parmar, et al.
Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study.
Lancet, 389 (2017), pp. 815-822
[19]
G. Kır, H. Seneldir, E. Gumus.
Outcomes of Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer with minimal amounts (<6%) vs ≥6% of Gleason pattern 4 tissue in needle biopsy specimens.
Ann Diagn Pathol, 20 (2016), pp. 48-51
[20]
N.J. Sathianathen, D.G. Murphy, R.C. van den Bergh, N. Lawrentschuk.
Gleason pattern 4: active surveillance no more.
BJU Int, 117 (2016), pp. 856-857
[21]
J.E. Thompson, P.J. van Leeuwen, D. Moses, R. Shnier, P. Brenner, W. Delprado, et al.
The diagnostic performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect significant prostate cancer.
J Urol, 195 (2016), pp. 1428-1435
[22]
V. Kasivisvanathan, A.S. Rannikko, M. Borghi, V. Panebianco, L.A. Mynderse, M.H. Vaarala, et al.
MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis.
N Engl J Med, 378 (2018), pp. 1767-1777
[23]
E. Baco, E. Rud, L.M. Eri, G. Moen, L. Vlatkovic, A. Svindland, 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.
Eur Urol, 69 (2016), pp. 149-156
[24]
P.P. Tonttila, J. Lantto, E. Pääkkö, U. Piippo, S. Kauppila, E. Lammentausta, 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.
Eur Urol, 69 (2016), pp. 419-425
[25]
M.R. Pokorny, M. de Rooij, E. Duncan, F.H. Schrder, R. Parkinson, J.O. Barentsz, et al.
Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR)imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies.
Eur Urol, 66 (2014), pp. 22-29
[26]
C.P. Filson, S. Natarajan, D.J. Margolis, J. Huang, P. Lieu, F.J. Dorey, et al.
Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion biopsy: the role of systematic and targeted biopsies.
Cancer, 122 (2016), pp. 884-892
[27]
O. Rouvière, P. Puech, R. Renard-Penna, M. Claudon, C. Roy, F. Mège-Lechevallier, et al.
Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study.
Lancet Oncol, (2019), pp. 100-109
[28]
M. van der Leest, E. Cornel, B. Israël, R. Hendriks, A.R. Padhani, M. Hoogenboom, et al.
Head-to-head Comparison of Transrectal Ultrasound guided Prostate Biopsy VersusMultiparametric Prostate Resonance Imaging with Subsequent Magnetic Resonance-guided Biopsy in Biopsynaïve Men with Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen: A Large ProspectiveMulticenter Clinical Study.
Eur Urol., 75 (2019), pp. 570-578
[29]
C.M. Moore, V. Kasivisvanathan, S. Eggener, M. Emberton, J.J. Futterer, I.S. Gill, et al.
Standards of reporting for MRI targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an international working group.
Eur Urol., 64 (2013), pp. 544-552
[30]
C.M. Moore, F. Giganti, P. Albertsen, C. Allen, C. Bangma, A. Briganti, et al.
Reporting magnetic resonance imaging in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer: the PRECISE recommendations–a report of a european school of oncology task force.
Eur Urol., 71 (2017), pp. 648-655
[31]
J.G. Rivas, F. Giganti, M. Álvarez-Maestro, M.J. Freire, V. Kasivisvanathan, L. Martinez-Piñero, et al.
Prostate indeterminate lesions on magnetic resonance imaging-biopsy versus surveillance: a literature review.
Eur Urol Focus, (2018),
[32]
Barrett T, Rajesh A., Rosenkrantz A.B., Choyke P.L., Turkbey B. PI-RADS version 2.1: one small step for prostate MRI. Clinical Radiology, https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.crad.2019.05.019.
[33]
I.G. Schoots, et al.
Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review.
Eur. Urol., 67 (2015), pp. 627-636
[34]
M.G. Schouten, M. van der Leest, M. Pokorny, M. Hoogenboom, J.O. Barentsz, L.C. Thompson, et al.
Why and where do we miss significant prostate cancer with multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging followed by magnetic resonance-guided and transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in biopsy-naive men?.
Eur Urol, 71 (2017), pp. 896-903
[35]
O. Wegelin, L. Exterkate, M. van der Leest, J.A. Kummer, W. Vreuls, P.C. de Bruin, et al.
The FUTURE Trial: A Multicenter Randomised Controlled Trial on Target Biopsy Techniques Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in Patients with Prior Negative Biopsies.
Eur Urol., 75 (2019), pp. 582-590
[36]
Z.K. Shah, et al.
Performance comparison of 1.5T endorectal coil MRI with non- endorectal coil 3.0T MRI in patients with prostate cancer.
Acad. Radiol, 36 (2016), pp. 1011-1014
[37]
T. Ullrich, et al.
Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate at 1.5 versus 3.0T: a prospective comparison study of image quality.
Eur J Radiol., 90 (2017), pp. 192-197
[38]
J.E. Thompson, et al.
Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging guided diagnostic biopsy detects significant prostate cancer and could reduce unnecessary biopsies and over detection: a prospective study.
J Urol., 192 (2014), pp. 67-74
[39]
J.C. Weinreb, J.O. Barentsz, P.L. Choyke, F. Cornud, M.A. Haider, K.J. Macura, et al.
PI-RADS prostate imaging–reporting and data system: 2015.
Eur Urol., 69 (2015), pp. 16-40
[40]
M. van der Leest, et al.
High Diagnostic Performance of Short Magnetic Resonance Imaging Protocols for Prostate Cancer Detection in Biopsy-naïve Men: The Next Step in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Accessibility.
Eur Urol, (2019),
[41]
M. de Rooij, S. Crienen, J.A. Witjes, J.O. Barentsz, M.M. Rovers, J.P.C. Grutters.
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.
Eur Urol., 66 (2014), pp. 430-436
[42]
N.J. Sathianathen, C.A. Warlick.
The Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in theProstate Cancer Primary Diagnostic Pathway: Is It Ready for Primetime?.
World J Mens Health, (2018), pp. 223-229
[43]
A. Stabile, F. Giganti, A. Rosenkrantz, S. Taneja, G. Villeirs, C. Allen, et al.
Multiparametric MRI for prostate cacer diagnosis: current status and future directions.
Nat Rev Urol., (2019),
[44]
M. de Rooij, et al.
Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Local Staging of Prostate Cancer: A Diagnostic Meta-analysis.
Eur Urol, 70 (2016), pp. 233
