Application of multiparametric magnet–resonance tomography in diagnosis of clinically significant prostatic cancer
Abstract
Objective. To estimate diagnostic efficacy of application of multiparametric magnet–resonance tomography (mpMRT) for revealing of clinically significant prostatic cancer.
Маterials and methods. Into the investigation 26 patients with suspicion on presence of prostatic cancer were included. In all the patients a complex clinical examination was conducted, including mpMRT. The images obtained in mpMRT were estimated in accordance to the PI–RADS system (Prostate Imаging–Reporting and Data System).
Results. The tumor was estimated in accordance to the PI–RADS system in 1 point in 2 (7.69%) patients, 2 points – in 5 (19.23%), 3 points – in 8 (30.77%), 4 points – in 6 (23.08%) and 5 points – in 5 (19.23%) patients. In the patients, owing 5 points in accordance to the tumor radiology estimated, the rate of revealing of clinically significant prostatic cancer have constituted 100%. Of a total number 6 patients, owing 4 points in accordance to the tumor radiology estimated, in 5 (83.33%) a clinically significant prostatic cancer was diagnosed, аnd in 1 (16.67%) patient – clinically nonsignificant variant of the tumor. Of a total number 8 patients, owing 3 points in accordance to the tumor radiology estimated, in 4 (66.67%) a clinically significant prostatic cancer was diagnosed, in 1 (16.67%) patient – clinically nonsignificant variant of the tumor, and in 1 (16.67%) – benign prostatic hyperplasia.
Conclusion. Application of mpMRT and a PI–RADS system in 85.7% patients have permitted to reveal a clinically significant prostatic cancer and to escape unnecessary procedures of the puncture biopsy in absence of its radiation features.
References
2. Wilt TJ, Andriole GL, Brawer MK. Prostatectomy versus Observation for Early Prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017 Sep 28;377(13):1302-3. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1710384
3. Mitin T, Nguyen PL. Postoperative Radiation Therapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: When, How Much, and How Fast? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019 Feb 1;103(2):289-92. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.08.003
4. Sureda A, Fumado L, Ferrer M, Garin O, Bonet X, Castells M, et al. Health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance versus radical prostatectomy, external-beam radiotherapy, prostate brachytherapy and reference population: a cross-sectional study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019 Jan 14;17(1):11. doi: 10.1186/s12955-019-1082-4
5. Shah TT, Peters M, Eldred-Evans D, Miah S, Yap T, Faure-Walker NA, et al. Early-Medium-Term Outcomes of Primary Focal Cryotherapy to Treat Nonmetastatic Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer from a Prospective Multicentre Registry. Eur Urol. 2019 Jan 8; doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.12.030
6. Pooli A, Salmasi A, Faiena I, Lenis AT, Johnson DC, Lebacle C, et al. Variation in surgical treatment patterns for patients with prostate cancer in the United States: Do patients in academic hospitals fare better? Urol Oncol. 2019 Jan;37(1):63-70. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.10.018.
7. Kim SH, Park EY, Joo J, Joung JY, Seo HK, Chung J, et al. Effect of Neoadjuvant Hormone Therapy on Resection Margin and Survival Prognoses in Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer after Prostatectomy Using Propensity-Score Matching. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:4307207. doi: 10.1155/2018/4307207.
8. Press B, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang R, Taneja SS. The ultrasound characteristics of regions identified as suspicious by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) predict the likelihood of clinically significant cancer on MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy. BJU Int. 2018 Nov 11; doi: 10.1111/bju.14615.
9. Shoji S. Magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion image-guided prostate biopsy: Current status of the cancer detection and the prospects of tailor-made medicine of the prostate cancer. Investig Clin Urol. 2019 Jan;60(1):4-13. doi: 10.4111/icu.2019.60.1.4.
10. Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, Mendhiratta N, Fenstermaker M, Huang R, Wysock JS, et al. Relationship Between Prebiopsy Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Biopsy Indication, and MRI-ultrasound Fusion-targeted Prostate Biopsy Outcomes. Eur Urol. 2016 Mar;69(3):512-7. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.005
11. Bjurlin MA, Meng X, Le Nobin J, Wysock JS, Lepor H, Rosenkrantz AB, et al. Optimization of prostate biopsy: the role of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in detection, localization and risk assessment. J Urol. 2014 Sep;192(3):648-58. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.03.117.
12. Hansen NL, Kesch C, Barrett T, Koo B, Radtke JP, Bonekamp D, et al. Multicentre evaluation of targeted and systematic biopsies using magnetic resonance and ultrasound image-fusion guided transperineal prostate biopsy in patients with a previous negative biopsy. BJU Int. 2017;120(5):631-8. doi: 10.1111/bju.13711
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
