Magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: Comparative studies including radical prostatectomy specimens and template transperineal biopsy

Liam Toner; Mahesha Weerakoon; Damien M Bolton; Andrew Ryan; Nikolas Katelaris; Nathan Lawrentschuk

doi:10.1016/j.prnil.2015.09.006

Magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: Comparative studies including radical prostatectomy specimens and template transperineal biopsy

Prostate Int. 2015 Dec;3(4):107-14. doi: 10.1016/j.prnil.2015.09.006. Epub 2015 Oct 19.

Authors

Liam Toner¹, Mahesha Weerakoon¹, Damien M Bolton², Andrew Ryan³, Nikolas Katelaris¹, Nathan Lawrentschuk⁴

Affiliations

¹ University of Melbourne, Department of Surgery, Urology Unit, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia.
² University of Melbourne, Department of Surgery, Urology Unit, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia; Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia.
³ Department of Pathology, TissuPath Specialist Pathology Services, Melbourne, Australia.
⁴ University of Melbourne, Department of Surgery, Urology Unit, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia; Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Surgical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.

Abstract

Purpose: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is an emerging technique aiming to improve upon the diagnostic sensitivity of prostate biopsy. Because of variance in interpretation and application of techniques, results may vary. There is likely a learning curve to establish consistent reporting of mpMRI. This study aims to review current literature supporting the diagnostic utility of mpMRI when compared with radical prostatectomy (RP) and template transperineal biopsy (TTPB) specimens.

Methods: MEDLINE and PubMed database searches were conducted identifying relevant literature related to comparison of mpMRI with RP or TTPB histology.

Results: Data suggest that compared with RP and TTPB specimens, the sensitivity of mpMRI for prostate cancer (PCa) detection is 80-90% and the specificity for suspicious lesions is between 50% and 90%.

Conclusions: mpMRI has an increasing role for PCa diagnosis, staging, and directing management toward improving patient outcomes. Its sensitivity and specificity when compared with RP and TTPB specimens are less than what some expect, possibly reflecting a learning curve for the technique of mpMRI.

Keywords: Diagnosis; Histopathology; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostate; Prostatectomy; Prostatic neoplasms.

Publication types

Review