Magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging of prostate cancer

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) are evolving techniques that offer noninvasive evaluation of anatomic and metabolic features of prostate cancer. The ability of MRI to determine the location and extent of the tumor and to identify metastatic spread is useful in the pretreatment setting, enabling treatment decision-making that is evidence-based. MRSI of the prostate gland expands the diagnostic assessment of prostate cancer through the detection of cellular metabolites, and can lead to noninvasive differentiation of cancer from healthy tissue. MRI/MRSI can also be used to evaluate both local and systemic recurrence, with endorectal MRI being capable of detecting local recurrence, even in patients with rising serum PSA level but no palpable tumor on digital rectal examination. Considering the benefits that MRI and MRSI have been shown to offer patients, the skills and technology required to perform these tests should be widely disseminated to make their routine use possible. Teamwork between members of radiology, pathology, urology and radiation oncology departments is essential in order to exploit these technologies fully.

Metabolic characterization of primary and metastatic ovarian cancer by 1H‐MRS in vivo at 3T

“…MR spectroscopy (MRS) has been shown to be useful in diagnosing and grading brain tumors (5,6) and in the detection, staging, and treatment planning of prostate cancer (7,8). Several small studies have evaluated the role of MRS in characterization of ovarian lesions, with encouraging results (9 -13).…”

Methods and biomarkers for the diagnosis and prognosis of cancer and other diseases: Towards personalized medicine

“…A similar study using Fourier-transformed infrared (FT-IR) spectroscopy of mdx muscles was able to follow the progression of fibrosis (collagen content and accumulation) during dystrophy, and also traced the partial alleviation of collagen accumulation after treatment with steroids (Shaw et al, 1996). These studies from the muscle literature, illustrate how a correlation of measures taken independently from different approaches can extend the impact of the conclusions that are reached, and similar combination studies of cancer diagnostics, screening, prognostic and treatment outcome have been shown highly advantageous (McIntosh et al, 1999;Kirkham et al, in press;Shah et al, 2006;Delorme and Weber, 2006;Weber et al, 2006;Huzjan et al, 2005).…”

Tumor Volume Changes on 1.5 Tesla Endorectal MRI During Neoadjuvant Androgen Suppression Therapy for Higher-Risk Prostate Cancer and Recurrence in Men Treated Using Radiation Therapy Results of the Phase II CALGB 9682 Study

“…The imaging technique involved: external multicoil arrays combined with an endorectal coil (Medrad Inc, Indianola, PA) that were used to allow imaging of the entire prostate and surrounding structures (7). Baseline prostate images were not obtained until at least 3 weeks (median, 1.0 [range, 0.8-3.0] months) after prostate biopsy to reduce the artifact that can be introduced from biopsy related intraprostatic hemorrhage (2). All prostate images were obtained using the same parameters, with both T2W and T1W sequences: a 10-12 cm field of view and a 256× 256 matrix interpolated to 512 pixels (256 pixel pairs) yielded a resolution of 0.4 mm per pixel pair.…”

“…The results of the Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group-sponsored prospective randomized trial (1) found no benefit for pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) performed with a body coil over transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) for staging men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Single-institution studies (2)(3)(4) performing MRI with an endorectal (e) coil have shown promise in men with palpable and intermediate-or high-risk disease where the overall accuracy of these modalities approximate 80% for the identification of occult extraprostatic disease. However, for the majority of men who present based on serial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening with nonpalpable disease, which imaging modality, if any, provides reliable information about the local extent of the disease remains an open question.…”