The role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in prostate cancer imaging and staging at 1.5 and 3 Tesla: The Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) approach

Department of Radiology, MRI, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
Cancer biomarkers: section A of Disease markers (Impact Factor: 1.72). 02/2008; 4(4-5):251-62.
Source: PubMed


Management decisions for patients with prostate cancer present a dilemma for both patients and their clinicians because prostate cancers demonstrate a wide range in biologic activity, with the majority of cases not leading to a prostate cancer related death. Furthermore, the current treatment options have significant side effects, such as incontinence, rectal injury and impotence. Key elements for guiding appropriate treatment include: distinction of organ-confined disease from extracapsular extension (ECE); and determination of tumor volume and tumor grade, none of which have been satisfactorily accomplished in today's pre-treatment paradigm. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has the capability to assess prostate tissue, both functionally and morphologically. MRI as a staging tool has not shown enough consistency or sufficient accuracy for widespread adoption in clinical practice; yet, recent technical developments in MRI have yielded improved results. At our institution we have combined the use of new endorectal 3 Tesla MRI technology, T2-weighted, and high spatial resolution dynamic-contrast enhanced (DCE) MRI to non-invasively assess the prostate with higher signal-to-noise ratio and spatial resolution than previously achieved. This approach allows assessment of prostate-tissue morphology and kinetics, thus providing a non-invasive tool for tumor detection and staging and, consequently, directing biopsy and treatment specifically to diseased areas for a pre-treatment evaluation that can assist in the rational selection of patients for appropriate prostate cancer therapy.

Download full-text


Available from: B. Nicolas Bloch, May 19, 2014
29 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Medical image analysis is more than just algorithms. Visualization of the original image data and processed results, interaction with the data, as well as the data themselves are also important. It has been widely used for demonstrating lesions or their localization in the musculoskeletal system, vascular system, respiratory and alimentary systems. Region of interest (ROI) imaging visualization techniques in computed tomography (CT), which can visualize an ROI image from the CT sequence data set of the ROI, can be used not only for reducing imaging-time but also for potentially increasing clinical analysis accuracy of the particular area images. VC++6.0 with visualization toolkit (VTK) are adopted to reconstruct the 3D images using the 2D CT image sequence in DICOM format. The ROI images visualization by use of the marching cubes (MC) algorithm from the clinical human CT data. The experimental results show that this method is robust, easy to implement and excellent image quality evaluation. Because the proposed method requires minimum visualization data for clinical analysis, it can reduce imaging-time, and has excellent image quality evaluation. These methods can assist doctors to make better and more accurate diagnosis.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Radiation therapy (RT) for prostate cancer has made huge strides over the past two decades. The addition of image guidance has allowed radiation oncologists to ensure accurate delivery of increasingly precise radiation treatment plans using newer conformal therapy methods such as three-dimensional conformal RT, intensity-modulated RT, and proton beam RT. Regardless of the specific treatment technique, patients can depend on the treatment to target the moving prostate effectively while significantly sparing adjacent tissues, thereby reducing the morbidity of having to undergo prostate cancer therapy. This review summarizes the recent technical advances made in radiation dose delivery, including target volume definition, treatment planning, treatment delivery methods, and positional verification methods during RT.
    Current Urology Reports 05/2010; 11(3):172-9. DOI:10.1007/s11934-010-0102-z · 1.51 Impact Factor
  • W W Yao · H Zhang · B Ding · T Fu · H Jia · L Pang · L Song · W Xu · Q Song · K Chen · Z Pan
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The primary aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the relationship between three-dimensional dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance (3D-DCE-MR) imaging parameters and clinicopathological features of rectal cancer and assess their potential as new radiological prognostic predictors. Three-dimensional DCE-MR was performed on 26 cases of pathologically proved rectal adenocarcinoma 1 week prior to operation. Data were analysed to calculate transfer constant (Ktrans), leakage space (Ve) and rate constant (Kep) of both tumour and normal rectal wall. Microvessel density (MVD) was evaluated by immunohistochemical staining of surgical specimens. All findings were analysed prospectively and correlated with tumour/node/metastasis (TNM) staging, Dukes staging, histological grading, presence of lymph node metastasis, serosal involvement and MVD. Mean Ktrans, Ve and Kep for tumours were as follows: Ktrans 7.123±3.850/min, Ve 14.2±3.0%, Kep 49.446±20.404/min, revealing the significant difference between the tumour and normal rectal wall (p=0.001). There was a significant difference for Ktrans not only between patients with and without lymphatic involvement (p=0.000), but also among Dukes staging (p=0.04) and pTNM staging (p=0.03). Kep showed moderate correlation with TNM stages (r=0.479, p=0.02). Ve and MVD revealed no significant correlation with the clinicopathological findings described above (p>0.05). Owing to the moderate and strong relationship between Ktrans and clinicopathological elements, Ktrans might be the prognostic indicator of rectal cancer. Threedimensional DCE high-resolution MR imaging provides a competing opportunity to assess contrast kinetics.
    La radiologia medica 02/2011; 116(3):366-74. DOI:10.1007/s11547-011-0628-2 · 1.34 Impact Factor
Show more