Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review
  • Published:

Magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 7, pages 282–288 (2004)Cite this article

Abstract

With the recently published National Institute of Clinical Excellence guidelines, it is now generally accepted that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the imaging method of choice for staging prostate cancer in patients for whom radical treatment is being considered. MRI offers the single most accurate assessment of local disease and regional metastatic spread. As well as detecting extraprostatic extension, this technique can locate the site of intraprostatic disease, which may prove useful in planning disease-targeting therapies currently being developed. However, numerous studies have reported widely varying accuracies indicating that MRI is not the perfect imaging modality; microscopic and early macroscopic invasion cannot be reliably shown using current technology. The role of MRI including advantages, limitations and future developments will be discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Imperial Cancer Research Fund. Cancer Statistics 1995.

  2. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures 1998.

  3. Partin AW et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localised prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA 1997; 277: 1445–1451.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gilliland FD et al. Predicting extracapsular extension of prostate cancer in men treated with radical prostatectomy: results from the population based prostate cancer outcomes study. J Urol 1999; 162: 1359–1360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Scher D, Swindle PW, Scardino PT . National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for the management of prostate cancer. Urology 2003; 61: 14–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Schiebler ML et al. Prostatic carcinoma and benign prostatic hyperplasia: correlation of high-resolution MR and histopathologic findings. Radiology 1989; 172: 131–137.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Mukamel E, Hannah J, Barbaric Z, DeKernion JB . The value of computerised tomography scan and magnetic resonance imaging in staging prostatic carcinoma: comparison with the clinical and histological staging. J Urol 1986; 136: 1231–1233.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Quinn SF et al. MR imaging of prostate cancer with an endorectal surface coil technique: correlation with whole-mount specimens. Radiology 1994; 190: 323–327.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Perotti M et al. Endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging in clinically localized prostate cancer: is it accurate? J Urol 1996; 156: 106–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Yu KK et al. Detection of extracapsular extension of prostate carcinoma with endorectal and phased-array coil MR imaging: multivariate feature analysis. Radiology 1997; 202: 697–702.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kier R, Wain S, Troiano R . Fast spin-echo MR images of the pelvis obtained with a phased-array coil: value in localizing and staging prostatic carcinoma. Am J Roentgenol 1993; 161: 601–606.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Engelbrecht MRW et al. Prostate cancer staging using imaging. Br J Urol Intl 2000; 86: s1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Stamey TA et al. Histological and clinical findings in 896 consecutive prostates treated only with radical retropubic prostatectomy: epidemiologic significance of annual changes. J Urol 1998; 160: 2412–2417.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Augustin H et al. Zonal location of prostate cancer: significance for disease-free survival after radical prostectomy? Urology 2003; 62: 79–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Shannon BA, Mc Neal JE, Cohen RJ . Transition zone carcinoma of the prostate gland: a common indolent tumour type that occasionally manifests aggressive behaviour. Pathology 2003; 35: 467–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. White S et al. Prostate cancer: effect of post biopsy haemorrhage on interpretation of MR images. Radiology 1995; 195: 385–390.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ikonen S et al. Optimal timing of post-biopsy MR imaging of the prostate. Acta Radiol 2001; 42: 70–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Engelbrecht MR et al. Local staging of prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2002; 12: 2294–2302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Husband JE et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of prostate cancer: comparison of image quality using endorectal and pelvic phased array coils. Clin Radiol 1998; 53: 673–681.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hricak H et al. Carcinoma of the prostate gland: MR imaging with pelvic phased-array coils versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Radiology 1994; 193: 703–709.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Tempany CM et al. Staging of prostate cancer: results of Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group project comparison of three MR imaging techniques. Radiology 1994; 192: 47–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Moyher SE, Vigneron DB, Nelson SJ . Surface coil MR imaging of the human brain with analytic reception profile correction. J Magn Reson Imaging 1995; 5: 139–144.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Cornud F et al. Local staging of prostate cancer by endorectal MRI using fast spin-echo sequences: prospective correlation with pathological findings after radical prostatectomy. Br J Urol 1996; 77: 843–850.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. D’Amico AV et al. Critical analysis of the ability of the endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging scan to predict pathologic stage, margin status, and postoperative prostate-specific antigen failure in patients with clinically organ-confined prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 1770–1777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Engelbrecht MR, Jager GJ, Severens JL . Patient selection for magnetic resonance imaging of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2001; 40: 300–307.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Cornud F et al. Extraprostatic spread of clinically localized prostate cancer: factors predictive of pT3 tumor and of positive endorectal MR imaging examination result. Radiology 2002; 224: 203–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Jager GJ et al. Prostate cancer staging: should MR imaging be used? A decision analytic approach. Radiology 2000; 215: 445–451.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Kooy HM et al. A software system for interventional magnetic resonance image guided prostate brachytherapy. Comput Aided Surg 2000; 5: 401–413.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Clarke DH et al. The role of endorectal coil MRI in patient selection and treatment planning for prostate seed implants. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002; 52: 903–910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Van Gellekom MP et al. MRI-guided prostate brachytherapy with single needle method: a planning study. Radiother Oncol 2004; 71: 327–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Amdur RJ et al. Prostate seed implant quality assessment using MR and CT image fusion. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999; 43: 67–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Coakley FV et al. Brachytherapy for prostate cancer: endorectal MR imaging of local treatment-related changes. Radiology 2001; 219: 817–821.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Milosevic M et al. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for localization of the prostatic apex: comparison to computed tomography (CT) and urethrography. Radiother Oncol 1998; 47: 277–284.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Debois M et al. The contribution of magnetic resonance imaging to the three-dimensional treatment planning of localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999; 45: 857–865.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Sannazzari GL et al. CT-MRI image fusion for delineation of volumes in three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy in the treatment of localised prostate cancer. Br J Radiol 2002; 75: 603–607.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Parker CC et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the radiation treatment planning of localized prostate cancer using intra-prostatic fiducial markers for computed tomography co-registration. Radiother Oncol 2003; 66: 217–224.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Steenbakkers RJ et al. Reduction of dose delivered to the rectum and bulb of the penis using MRI delineation for radiotherapy of the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 57: 1269–1279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Buyyounouski MK et al. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy with MRI simulation to reduce doses received by erectile tissue during prostate cancer treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 58: 743–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Pickett B et al. Time to metabolic atrophy after permanent prostate seed implantation based on magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 59: 665–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hricak H et al. Advances in imaging in the postoperative patient with a rising prostate-specific antigen level. Semin Oncol 2003; 30: 616–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sella T et al. Suspected local recurrence after radical prostatectomy: endorectal coil MR imaging. Radiology 2004; 231: 379–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Eustace S et al. A comparison of whole-body turboSTIR MR imaging and planar 99mTc-methylene diphosphonate scintigraphy in the examination of patients with suspected skeletal metastases. Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171: 519–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Traill ZC, Talbot D, Golding S, Gleeson F et al. Magnetic resonance imaging versus radionuclide scintigraphy in screening for bone metastases. Clin Radiol 1999; 54: 448–451.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Steinborn MM et al. Whole-body bone marrow MRI in patients with metastatic disease to the skeletal system. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1999; 23: 123–129.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Lauenstein TC et al. Whole-body MRI using a rolling table platform for the detection of bone metastases. Eur Radiol 2002; 12: 2091–2099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Engelhard K et al. Comparison of whole-body MRI with automatic table technique and bone scintigraphy for screening for bone metastases in patients with breast cancer. Eur Radiol 2004; 14: 99–105.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Mirowitz SA, Brown JJ, Heiken JP . Evaluation of the prostate and prostatic carcinoma with gadolinium-enhanced endorectal coil MR imaging. Radiology 1993; 186: 153–157.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Huch Boni RA et al. Contrast-enhanced endorectal coil MRI in local staging of prostate carcinoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1995; 19: 232–237.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Brown G, Macvicar DA, Ayton V, Husband JE et al. The role of intravenous contrast enhancement in magnetic resonance imaging of the prostatic carcinoma. Clin Radiol 1995; 50: 601–606.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Engelbrecht MR et al. Discrimination from normal peripheral zone and central gland tissue by using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2003; 229: 248–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Padhani AR et al. Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation with morphology and tumour stage, histological grade and PSA. Clin Radiol 2000; 55: 99–109.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Barentsz JO et al. Fast dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging of urinary bladder and prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999; 10: 295–304.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Preziosi P et al. Enhancement patterns of prostate cancer in dynamic MRI. Eur Radiol 2003; 13: 925–930.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Ogura 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Rouviere O et al. Characterisation of time-enhancement curves of benign and malignant prostate tissue at dynamic MR imaging. Eur Radiol 2003; 13: 931–942.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Kurhanewicz J et al. The prostate: MR imaging and spectroscopy. Present and future. Radiol Clin North Am 2000; 38: 115–138,viii-ix.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Coakley FV, Qayyum A, Kurhanewicz J . Magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopic imaging of prostate cancer. J Urol 2003; 170: S69–S75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Scheidler J et al. Prostate cancer: localisation with 3-D proton MR spectroscopic imaging—clinicopathologic study. Radiology 1999; 213: 473–480.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Coakley FV et al. Prostate cancer tumor volume: measurement with endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 2002; 223: 91–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Yu KK et al. Prostate cancer: prediction of extracapsular extension with endorectal MR imaging and three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 1999; 213: 481–488.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Wefer AE et al. Sextant localisation of prostate cancer: comparison of sextant biopsy, magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging with step section histology. J Urol 2000; 164: 405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Zakian KL et al. Transition zone prostate cancer: metabolic characteristics at MR spectroscopic imaging—initial results. Radiology 2003; 229: 241–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. DiBiase SJ et al. Magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging-guided brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002; 52: 429–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Harisinghani MG et al. MR lymphangiography using ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide in patients with primary abdominal and pelvis malignancies: radiographic-pathologic correlation. Am J Roentgenol 1999; 172: 1347–1351.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Bellin MF, Lebleu L, Meric JB . Evaluation of retroperitoneal and pelvic lymph node metastases with MRI and MR lymphangiography. Abdom Imaging 2003; 28: 155–163.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the MRI Department at the Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton, UK and Dr Aliya Qayyum, University of California, San Francisco, USA for the use of their images.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Radiology, St George's Hospital, London, UK

    S D Heenan

Authors
  1. S D Heenan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S D Heenan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Heenan, S. Magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 7, 282–288 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.pcan.4500767

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.pcan.4500767

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links