Article

Brachytherapy for prostate cancer: endorectal MR imaging of local treatment-related changes

Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10021, USA.
Radiology (Impact Factor: 6.21). 07/2001; 219(3):817-21. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.219.3.r01jn46817
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To determine the local treatment-related endorectal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging findings after brachytherapy for prostate cancer.
Endorectal MR imaging was performed in 35 consecutive patients at a mean interval of 12 months (range, 1-31 months) after brachytherapy for prostate cancer. Transverse T1-weighted and high-spatial-resolution transverse and coronal T2-weighted images were acquired. Two readers reviewed MR image quality and findings, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Posttreatment urinary symptoms in patients (n = 24) were documented by using chart review.
All studies were of diagnostic quality. On T2-weighted images, prostatic findings consisted of diffuse low signal intensity (n = 35) and indistinct zonal anatomy (n = 34). Intra- and extraprostatic seed locations could be distinguished. The most common extraprostatic site of seed implantation was the neurovascular bundles (n = 35, bilateral in 32). The most common extraprostatic tissue finding was increased signal intensity on T2-weighted images in the levator ani muscle (n = 34) and the genitourinary diaphragm (n = 28). Postbrachytherapy urinary symptoms showed no demonstrable correlation with periurethral or genitourinary diaphragm seed implantation or with signal intensity change in the genitourinary diaphragm.
Endorectal MR imaging can be used to evaluate seed distribution and to demonstrate treatment-related changes after brachytherapy for prostate cancer.

0 Followers
 · 
58 Views
  • Source
    • "En pondération T2, la prostate est dédifférenciée et en hyposignal diffus [48]. Cette séquence est donc peu utile. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Parce qu’il existe des solutions de rattrapage, il est important de dépister tôt les récidives locales du cancer de prostate. Le premier signe est la réascension du taux de PSA (« récidive biologique »). La définition de la récidive biologique varie suivant le traitement initial : PSA supérieur à 0,2 ng/mL après prostatectomie, nadir + 2 ng/mL après radiothérapie. La définition de la récidive biologique après cryothérapie, ultrasons focalisés ou curiethérapie n’est pas standardisée. L’IRM (notamment dynamique) peut détecter les récidives locales avec une bonne sensibilité. Le rôle de la spectroscopie reste discuté. Les techniques échographiques sont moins performantes que l’IRM pour l’instant.
    04/2012; 93(4):302–313. DOI:10.1016/j.jradio.2012.01.006
  • Source
    • "In addition, the use of MRI in detecting recurrence after therapy is not well established, partly because the exact site of local, regional, or distant recurrence in patients with rising PSA is, in most cases, uncertain, which in turn makes the targeting of an imaging site difficult [43]. The ability of MRI to depict residual/recurrent disease after radiotherapy is limited because of posttreatment changes, including prostatic shrinkage, development of diffuse low T 2 -weighted signal intensity in the gland, and indistinctness of normal zonal anatomy [60]. In addition, even if the tumor is detected, MRI does not have the ability to distinguish active tumor from treated tumor. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prostatic neoplasms are not uniformly distributed within the prostate volume. With recent developments in three-dimensional intensity-modulated and image-guided radiation therapy, it is possible to treat different volumes within the prostate to different thresholds of doses. This approach has the potential to adapt the dose to the biologic aggressiveness of various clusters of tumor cells within the gland. The definition of tumor burden volume in prostate cancer can be facilitated by the use of magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS). The increasing sensitivity and specificity of MRS to the prostate is causing new interest in its potential role in the definition of target subvolumes at higher risk of failure following radical radiotherapy. Prostate MRS might also play a role as a noninvasive predictive factor for tumor response and treatment outcome. We review the use of MRS in radiation therapy for prostate cancer by evaluating its accuracy in the classification of aggressive cancer regions and target definition; its current role in the radiotherapy planning process, with special interest in technical issues behind the successful inclusion of MRS in clinical use; and available early experiences as a prognostic tool.
    Neoplasia (New York, N.Y.) 07/2007; 9(6):455-63. DOI:10.1593/neo.07277 · 5.40 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Klinisches/methodisches Problem Für Patienten mit Prostatakarzinom stellt die Radiatio eine potenziell kurative lokale Therapieoption dar. Im Rahmen der Nachsorge nach lokal kurativ intendierter Therapie wird aktuell der Verlauf des PSA-Werts (PSA prostataspezifisches Antigen) kontrolliert, der Einsatz bildgebender Verfahren wird lediglich bei symptomatischen Patienten und/oder zur Planung einer Salvagetherapie empfohlen. Radiologische Standardverfahren Die MRT der Prostata stellt derzeit die Methode der Wahl zur lokalen Rezidivdiagnostik dar. Leistungsfähigkeit Insbesondere in Verbindung mit funktionellen Untersuchungstechniken zeigen Studien gute Ergebnisse in der Primärdiagnostik. Zum Einsatz der MRT der Prostata in der Rezidivsituation wurden bisher nur wenige Studien mit heterogenem Studiendesign publiziert. Auch die in der MRT nach Bestrahlung sichtbaren Veränderungen in den unterschiedlichen Modalitäten sind noch wenig evaluiert. Empfehlung für die Praxis Da die ersten Studienergebnisse auch bei Patienten nach Radiatio viel versprechend sind, sollte bei unklarem PSA-Anstieg und vorhandener Therapieoption eine MRT der Prostata zur Klärung der lokalen Situation in Betracht gezogen werden.
    Der Radiologe 03/2012; 52(3). DOI:10.1007/s00117-011-2196-9 · 0.41 Impact Factor
Show more