Korean J Urol.  2010 May;51(5):308-312.

The Role of Endorectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Predicting Extraprostatic Extension and Seminal Vesicle Invasion in Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer

• Park SY
• Kim JJ
• Kim TH
• Lim SH
• Han DH
• Park BK
• Kim CK
• Kwon GY
• Choi HY
• Lee HM

Abstract

PURPOSE
We aimed to assess the clinical value of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in predicting extraprostatic extension and seminal vesicle invasion in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 54 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer were retrospectively analyzed. The findings of endorectal MRI, performed at least 3 weeks after biopsy, were compared with the pathological results of radical prostatectomy specimens. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the detection of extraprostatic extension and seminal vesicle invasion were calculated. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the endorectal MRI findings were 50.0%, 82.6%, and 77.8% for the detection of extraprostatic extension, respectively, and 75.0%, 92.0%, and 90.7% for the detection of seminal vesicle invasion, respectively. The sensitivity of endorectal MRI in the detection of extraprostatic extension improved as the Gleason score increased. CONCLUSIONS: Endorectal MRI findings demonstrated modest sensitivity for predicting extraprostatic extension, whereas specificity was relatively high. In addition, endorectal MRI showed better sensitivity for detecting high-grade tumors.

Keyword

Magnetic resonance imaging; Neoplasm staging; Prostatic neoplasms

MeSH Terms

Biopsy
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy
Magnetics
Magnets
Neoplasm Grading
Neoplasm Staging
Prostate
Prostatectomy
Prostatic Neoplasms
Retrospective Studies
Seminal Vesicles
Sensitivity and Specificity

Reference

1. Rifkin MD, Zerhouni EA, Gatsonis CA, Quint LE, Paushter DM, Epstein JI, et al. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in staging early prostate cancer. Results of a multi-institutional cooperative trial. N Engl J Med. 1990; 323:621–626. PMID: 2200965.

2. Manyak MJ, Javitt MC. The role of computerized tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, bone scan, and monoclonal antibody nuclear scan for prognosis prediction in prostate cancer. Semin Urol Oncol. 1998; 16:145–152. PMID: 9741419.

3. Nishimoto K, Nakashima J, Hashiguchi A, Kikuchi E, Miyajima A, Nakagawa K, et al. Prediction of extraprostatic extension by prostate specific antigen velocity, endorectal MRI, and biopsy Gleason score in clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Urol. 2008; 15:520–523. PMID: 18422574.

4. Ikonen S, Kärkkäinen P, Kivisaari L, Salo JO, Taari K, Vehmas T, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of prostatic cancer: does detection vary between high and low gleason score tumors? Prostate. 2000; 43:43–48. PMID: 10725864.

5. Engelbrecht MR, Jager GJ, Laheij RJ, Verbeek AL, van Lier HJ, Barentsz JO. Local staging of prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2002; 12:2294–2302. PMID: 12195484.

6. 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; 195:385–390. PMID: 7724756.

7. Chen M, Hricak H, Kalbhen CL, Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron DB, Weiss JM, et al. Hormonal ablation of prostatic cancer: effects on prostate morphology, tumor detection, and staging by endorectal coil MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996; 166:1157–1163. PMID: 8615261.

8. Outwater EK, Petersen RO, Siegelman ES, Gomella LG, Chernesky CE, Mitchell DG. Prostate carcinoma: assessment of diagnostic criteria for capsular penetration on endorectal coil MR images. Radiology. 1994; 193:333–339. PMID: 7972739.

9. Schiebler ML, Schnall MD, Pollack HM, Lenkinski RE, Tomaszewski JE, Wein AJ, et al. Current role of MR imaging in the staging of adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Radiology. 1993; 189:339–352. PMID: 8210358.

10. Tempany CM, Zhou X, Zerhouni EA, Rifkin MD, Quint LE, Piccoli CW, et al. Staging of prostate cancer: results of Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group project comparison of three MR imaging techniques. Radiology. 1994; 192:47–54. PMID: 8208963.

11. Augustin H, Auprich M, Stummvoll P, Lipsky K, Pummer K, Petritsch P. Shift of tumor features in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy since the beginning of the PSA era. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2006; 118:348–354. PMID: 16855924.

12. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009; 59:225–249. PMID: 19474385.

13. Schostak M, Miller K, Schrader M. Radical prostatectomy in the 21st century - the gold standard for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer. Front Radiat Ther Oncol. 2008; 41:7–14. PMID: 18544980.

14. Makarov DV, Trock BJ, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, et al. Updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason score (Partin tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005. Urology. 2007; 69:1095–1101. PMID: 17572194.

15. Barocas DA, Han M, Epstein JI, Chan DY, Trock BJ, Walsh PC, et al. Does capsular incision at radical retropubic prostatectomy affect disease-free survival in otherwise organ-confined prostate cancer? Urology. 2001; 58:746–751. PMID: 11711353.

16. Turini M, Redaelli A, Gramegna P, Radice D. Quality of life and economic considerations in the management of prostate cancer. Pharmacoeconomics. 2003; 21:527–541. PMID: 12751912.

17. Levran Z, Gonzalez JA, Diokno AC, Jafri SZ, Steinert BW. Are pelvic computed tomography, bone scan and pelvic lymphadenectomy necessary in the staging of prostatic cancer? Br J Urol. 1995; 75:778–781. PMID: 7542138.

18. Kirkham AP, Emberton M, Allen C. How good is MRI at detecting and characterising cancer within the prostate? Eur Urol. 2006; 50:1163–1174. PMID: 16842903.

19. Nakashima J, Tanimoto A, Imai Y, Mukai M, Horiguchi Y, Nakagawa K, et al. Endorectal MRI for prediction of tumor site, tumor size, and local extension of prostate cancer. Urology. 2004; 64:101–105. PMID: 15245944.

20. Ikonen S, Kärkkäinen P, Kivisaari L, Salo JO, Taari K, Vehmas T, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of clinically localized prostatic cancer. J Urol. 1998; 159:915–919. PMID: 9474182.

21. Rorvik J, Halvorsen OJ, Albrektsen G, Ersland L, Daehlin L, Haukaas S. MRI with an endorectal coil for staging of clinically localised prostate cancer prior to radical prostatectomy. Eur Radiol. 1999; 9:29–34. PMID: 9933375.

22. Ellis JH, Tempany C, Sarin MS, Gatsonis C, Rifkin MD, McNeil BJ. MR imaging and sonography of early prostatic cancer: pathologic and imaging features that influence identification and diagnosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994; 162:865–872. PMID: 8141009.

23. Padhani AR. MRI for assessing antivascular cancer treatments. Br J Radiol. 2003; 76:S60–S80. PMID: 15456715.

24. Ogura K, Maekawa S, Okubo K, Aoki Y, Okada T, Oda K, et al. Dynamic endorectal magnetic resonance imaging for local staging and detection of neurovascular bundle involvement of prostate cancer: correlation with histopathologic results. Urology. 2001; 57:721–726. PMID: 11306390.

25. Younes P, Chemla N, Hamze B, Mani J, Naouri JF. Prostate MRI spectroscopy. Ann Urol (Paris). 2007; 41:145–157. PMID: 18260605.

26. deSouza NM, Riches SF, Vanas NJ, Morgan VA, Ashley SA, Fisher C, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: a potential non-invasive marker of tumour aggressiveness in localized prostate cancer. Clin Radiol. 2008; 63:774–782. PMID: 18555035.

27. Kim CK, Park BK. Update of prostate magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2008; 32:163–172. PMID: 18379296.

28. Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Pearson JD. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology. 2001; 58:843–848. PMID: 11744442.