Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Prostate Cancer: A Review of Current Methods and Applications

Overview

Journal World J Radiol

Publisher Baishideng Publishing Group

Specialty Radiology

Date 2018 Jan 23

PMID 29354207

Citations 23

Authors

Yousef Mazaheri

Oguz Akin

Hedvig Hricak

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

In many areas of oncology, dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) has proven to be a clinically useful, non-invasive functional imaging technique to quantify tumor vasculature and tumor perfusion characteristics. Tumor angiogenesis is an essential process for tumor growth, proliferation, and metastasis. Malignant lesions demonstrate rapid extravasation of contrast from the intravascular space to the capillary bed due to leaky capillaries associated with tumor neovascularity. DCE-MRI has the potential to provide information regarding blood flow, areas of hypoperfusion, and variations in endothelial permeability and microvessel density to aid treatment selection, enable frequent monitoring during treatment and assess response to targeted therapy following treatment. This review will discuss the current status of DCE-MRI in cancer imaging, with a focus on its use in imaging prostate malignancies as well as weaknesses that limit its widespread clinical use. The latest techniques for quantification of DCE-MRI parameters will be reviewed and compared.

Citing Articles

[Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for hepatocellular carcinoma, part 1 : Morphology and dynamic perfusion imaging in primary diagnostics and treatment monitoring].

Jahn M, Layer G Radiologie (Heidelb). 2024; 64(4):321-332.

PMID: 38502373 DOI: 10.1007/s00117-024-01285-1.

Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging parameter changes as an early biomarker of tumor responses following radiation therapy in patients with spinal metastases: a systematic review.

Mulyadi R, Putri P, Handoko H, Aviesena Zairinal R, Prihartono J Radiat Oncol J. 2024; 41(4):225-236.

PMID: 38185927 PMC: 10772591. DOI: 10.3857/roj.2023.00290.

Inter-Rater Variability of Prostate Lesion Segmentation on Multiparametric Prostate MRI.

Jeganathan T, Salgues E, Schick U, Tissot V, Fournier G, Valeri A Biomedicines. 2023; 11(12).

PMID: 38137530 PMC: 10741937. DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines11123309.

Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Study in the mpMRI of the Prostate-Unnecessary or Underutilised? A Narrative Review.

Guljas S, Dupan Krivdic Z, Dreznjak Madunic M, Sambic Penc M, Pavlovic O, Krajina V Diagnostics (Basel). 2023; 13(22).

PMID: 37998624 PMC: 10670922. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13223488.

Quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced parameters and intravoxel incoherent motion facilitate the prediction of TP53 status and risk stratification of early-stage endometrial carcinoma.

Wang H, Yan R, Li Z, Wang B, Jin X, Guo Z Radiol Oncol. 2023; 57(2):257-269.

PMID: 37341203 PMC: 10286889. DOI: 10.2478/raon-2023-0023.

References

Rouviere O, Lyonnet D, Raudrant A, Chapelon J, Bouvier R, Dubernard J . MRI appearance of prostate following transrectal HIFU ablation of localized cancer. Eur Urol. 2001; 40(3):265-74. DOI: 10.1159/000049786. View

Tofts P . Modeling tracer kinetics in dynamic Gd-DTPA MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1997; 7(1):91-101. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.1880070113. View

Akin O, Gultekin D, Vargas H, Zheng J, Moskowitz C, Pei X . Incremental value of diffusion weighted and dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in the detection of locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiation treatment: preliminary results. Eur Radiol. 2011; 21(9):1970-8. PMC: 3730825. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2130-6. View

Barentsz J, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G . ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012; 22(4):746-57. PMC: 3297750. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y. View

GLEASON D, MELLINGER G . Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol. 1974; 111(1):58-64. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)59889-4. View

Donahue K, Burstein D, Manning W, Gray M . Studies of Gd-DTPA relaxivity and proton exchange rates in tissue. Magn Reson Med. 1994; 32(1):66-76. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.1910320110. View

Tofts P, Brix G, Buckley D, Evelhoch J, Henderson E, Knopp M . Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999; 10(3):223-32. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1522-2586(199909)10:3<223::aid-jmri2>3.0.co;2-s. View

Epstein J . What's new in prostate cancer disease assessment in 2006?. Curr Opin Urol. 2006; 16(3):146-51. DOI: 10.1097/01.mou.0000193389.31727.9b. View

Chen M, Dang H, Wang J, Zhou C, Li S, Wang W . Prostate cancer detection: comparison of T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging, proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging, and the three techniques combined. Acta Radiol. 2008; 49(5):602-10. DOI: 10.1080/02841850802004983. View

10.

Alonzi R, Padhani A, Taylor N, Collins D, dArcy J, Stirling J . Antivascular effects of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation for prostate cancer: an in vivo human study using susceptibility and relaxivity dynamic MRI. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010; 80(3):721-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.02.060. View

11.

Vos E, Litjens G, Kobus T, Hambrock T, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, Barentsz J . Assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T. Eur Urol. 2013; 64(3):448-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.045. View

12.

Ocak I, Bernardo M, Metzger G, Barrett T, Pinto P, Albert P . Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer at 3 T: a study of pharmacokinetic parameters. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007; 189(4):849. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.06.1329. View

13.

Bak J, Landas S, Haas G . Characterization of prostate cancer missed by sextant biopsy. Clin Prostate Cancer. 2004; 2(2):115-8. DOI: 10.3816/cgc.2003.n.019. View

14.

Rothke M, Blondin D, Schlemmer H, Franiel T . [PI-RADS classification: structured reporting for MRI of the prostate]. Rofo. 2013; 185(3):253-61. DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1330270. View

15.

Weinmann H, Laniado M, Mutzel W . Pharmacokinetics of GdDTPA/dimeglumine after intravenous injection into healthy volunteers. Physiol Chem Phys Med NMR. 1984; 16(2):167-72. View

16.

Tamada T, Sone T, Higashi H, Jo Y, Yamamoto A, Kanki A . Prostate cancer detection in patients with total serum prostate-specific antigen levels of 4-10 ng/mL: diagnostic efficacy of diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, and T2-weighted imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 197(3):664-70. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.10.5923. View

17.

Haider M, Chung P, Sweet J, Toi A, Jhaveri K, Menard C . Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for localization of recurrent prostate cancer after external beam radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007; 70(2):425-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.06.029. View

18.

Villers A, Puech P, Mouton D, Leroy X, Ballereau C, Lemaitre L . Dynamic contrast enhanced, pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging of localized prostate cancer for predicting tumor volume: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. J Urol. 2006; 176(6 Pt 1):2432-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.08.007. View

19.

Franiel T, Ludemann L, Rudolph B, Rehbein H, Stephan C, Taupitz M . Prostate MR imaging: tissue characterization with pharmacokinetic volume and blood flow parameters and correlation with histologic parameters. Radiology. 2009; 252(1):101-8. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2521081400. View

20.

Dvorak H, Brown L, Detmar M, Dvorak A . Vascular permeability factor/vascular endothelial growth factor, microvascular hyperpermeability, and angiogenesis. Am J Pathol. 1995; 146(5):1029-39. PMC: 1869291. View