ROLE OF MULTIPARAMETRIC MRI IN THE DETECTION AND LOCALIZATION OF EARLY-STAGE PROSTATE CANCER

The efficiency of prostate cancer (PC) diagnosis using multipatametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was evaluated. Unlike most of investigations of the similar problem, this trial provides an objective assessment applying the method of statistical analysis - binary logistic regression. It used data on 166 patients, including primary patients (with suspected PC), as well as patients with the established diagnosis of PC, those with a history of negative biopsy, and those with suspected recurrent PC. Some patients underwent target biopsy, the results of which were then employed for statistical processing. The data of the analysis showed that the sensitivity, specificity, and total accuracy of the method using the created model of binary logistic regression at the separation value of 0.625 were 75.0, 85.2, and 79.7%, respectively. The efficiency of diffusion-weighted images (DWI) with varying weighing degree by water molecule diffusion (b factor) on MRI systems with different magnetic field strength (1.5 and 3 Tesla) was also evaluated. There were no statistically significant differences in normalized absolute signal intensity as to the contralateral gland portion) in DWI with b factors of 1000 and 2000 between the MRI systems with a magnetic field strength of 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla.

1. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures 2008. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2008.

2. Статистика злокачественных новообразований в России и странах СНГ в 2004 году. Под ред. М. И. Давыдова и Е. М. Аксель. Вестн РОНЦ им. Н. Н. Блохина РАМН. 2006;17 (3): 1–132.

3. Hricak H., White S., Vigneron D. et al. Cancer of the prostate gland: MR imaging with pelvic-phased-array coils versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased – array coils. Radiology 1994;193:703–9.

4. Dono van J., Hamdy F., Neal D. et al. ProtecT Study Group. Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) feasibility study. Health Technol Assess 2003:7 (14):1–88.

5. Eichler K., Hempel S., Wilby J. et al. Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J Urol 2006;175 (5):1605–12.

6. Lee F., Torp-Pedersen S. T., Siders D. B. et al. Transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer. Radiology 1989;170 (3 Pt 1):609–15.

7. Lee N., Newhouse J. H., Olsson C. A. et al. Which patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer need a computed tomography scan of the abdomen and pelvis? An analysis based on 588 patients. Urology 1999;54 (3):490–4.

8. Smith J.A. Jr, Scardino P.T., Resnick M.I., et al. Transrectal ultrasound versus digital rectal examination for the staging of carcinoma of the prostate: results of a prospective multi-institutional trial. J Urol 1997;157 (3):902–6.

9. Sauvain J.L., Palascak P., Bourscheid D., et al. Value of power Doppler and 3D vascular sonography as a method for diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2003;44 (1):21–30.

10. Smeenge M., Mischi M., Laguna Pes M.P., et al. Novel contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging in prostate cancer. World J Urol 2011;29 (5):581–7.

11. Zalesky M., Urban M., Smerhovský Z., et al. Value of power Doppler sonography with 3D reconstruction in preoperative diagnostics of extraprostatic tumor extension in clinically localized prostate cancer. Int J Urol 2008;15 (1):68–75.

12. Hricak H., Dooms G. C., McNeal J. E. MR imaging of thr prostate gland. Normal anatomy. Am J Roenthenol 1987;148:51–64.

13. Schnall M. D., Pollack H. M. Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate. Urol Radiol 1990;12:109–15.

14. Yu K. K., Hricak H. Imaging prostate cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 2000;38 (1):59–85.

15. Jager G. J., Ruijet E. T., van de Kaa C. A. et al. Local staging of prostate cancer with endorectal MR imaging: correlation with histopathology. Am J Roentgenol 1996;166:845–52.

16. Lemaitre L., Puech P., Poncelet E. et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of anterior prostate cancer: morphometric assessment and correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. Eur Radiol 2009;19 (2):470–80.

17. Kirkham A. P., Emberton M., Allen C. How good is MRI detecting and characterizing cancer within the prostate? Eur Urol 2006;50:1163–74.

18. Biondetti P. R., Lee J. K., Ling D. et al. Clinical stage B prostate carcinoma: staging with MR imaging. Radiolgy1987;162:325–9.

19. Presti J. C. Jr, Hricak H., Narayan P. A. et al. Local staging of prostatic carcinoma: comparison of transrectal sonography and endorectal MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;166:103–8.

20. Tempany C. M., Zhou X., Zerhouni E. A. et al. Staging of prostate cancer: results of Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group project comparison of three MR imaging techniques. Radiology 1994;192:47–54.

21. Jager G. J., Ruijet E. T., van de Kaa C. A. et al. Local staging of prostate cancer with endorectal MR imaging: correlation with histopathology. Am J Roentgenol1996;166:845–52.

22. Gossmann A., Okuhata Y., Shames D. M. et al. Prostate cancer tumor grade differentiation with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in the rat: comparison of macromolecular and small-molecular contrast media – preliminary experience. Radiology 1999;213 (1): 265–72.

23. Kuhn M., Huttmann P., Spielhaupter E. et al. Clinical value of native and contrast enhanced MRI in staging prostatic carcinoma before planned radical prostatectomy. ROFO Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr 2001;173 (7):595–600.

24. Bree R. L. The role of color Doppler and staging biopsies in prostate cancer detection. Urology 1997;49 (3):31–5.

25. Padhani A. R., Gapinski C. J., Macvicar D. A. et al. Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of prostate cancer correlation with morphology and tumour stage, histological grade and PSA. Clin Radiol 2000;55 (2):99–109.

26. Ogura K., Maekawa S., Okubo 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 (4):721–36.

27. Hricak H., White S., Vigneron D. et al. Carcinoma of the prostate gland: MR imaging with pelvic phased-array coils versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Radiology 1994; 193:703–10.

28. Borchers H., Tache J., Biesterfeld S.et al. Improved diagnosis of pT2 prostate cancer by gadolinium enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Urol 2001; 39 (5):211–6.

29. Perroti M., Kaufman R. P., Jennings T. A. et al. Endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging in clinically localized prostate cancer: is it accurate? Urology 1996;156:106–9.

30. Poularis V., Witzsch U., de Vries R. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with dynamic contrast enhancement in local staging of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2001;39 (5):1–216.

31. Tanaka N., Samma S., Jokko M. Diagnostic usefulness of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging with dynamic contrastenhancement in patients with localized prostate cancer: mapping studies with biopsy specimens. Int J Urol 1999;6(12):593–9.

32. Field Andy. Discovering Statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics. SAGE Publications Ltd, London EC1Y 1SP, 2005.

33. Бююль А., Цёфель П. SPSS: искусство обработки информации. М.: DiaSoft, 2005.

34. Vilanova J. C., Barcelo-Vidal C., Comet J. et al. Usefulness of prebiopsy multifunctional and morphologic MRI combined with free-tototal prostate-specific antigen ratio in the detection of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196:715–22.

35. Walz J., Graefen M., Chun F. K. et al. High incidence of prostate cancer detected by saturation biopsy after previous negative biopsy series. Eur Urol 2006;50 (3):498–505.