Search

Purpose The PI-RADS™ (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System), version 2 scoring system, introduced in 2015, is based on expert consensus. In the same time frame ISUP (International Society of Urological Pathology) introduced a new pathological scoring system for prostate cancer. Our goal was to prospectively evaluate the cancer detection rates for each PI-RADS, version 2 category and compare them to ISUP group scores in patients undergoing systematic biopsy and magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy. Materials and Methods A total of 339 treatment naïve patients prospectively underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging evaluated with PI-RADS, version 2 with subsequent systematic and fusion guided biopsy from May 2015 to May 2016. ISUP scores were applied to pathological specimens. An ISUP score of 2 or greater (ie Gleason 3 + 4 or greater) was defined as clinically significant prostate cancer. Cancer detection rates were determined for each PI-RADS, version 2 category as well as for the T2 weighted PI-RADS, version 2 categories in the peripheral zone. Results The cancer detection rate for PI-RADS, version 2 categories 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 was 25%, 20.2%, 24.8%, 39.1% and 86.9% for all prostate cancer, and 0%, 9.6%, 12%, 22.1% and 72.4% for clinically significant prostate cancer, respectively. On T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging the cancer detection rate in the peripheral zone was significantly higher for PI-RADS, version 2 category 4 than for overall PI-RADS, version 2 category 4 in the peripheral zone (all prostate cancer 36.6% vs 48.1%, p = 0.001, and clinically significant prostate cancer 22.9% vs 32.6%, p = 0.002). Conclusions The cancer detection rate increases with higher PI-RADS, version 2 categories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Active surveillance is an established option for men with low risk prostate cancer. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy may better identify patients for active surveillance compared to systematic 12-core biopsy due to improved risk stratification. To our knowledge the performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in following men on active surveillance with visible lesions is unknown. We evaluated multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy to monitor men on active surveillance. Materials and Methods This retrospective review included men from 2007 to 2015 with prostate cancer on active surveillance in whom magnetic resonance imaging visible lesions were monitored by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and fusion guided biopsy. Progression was defined by ISUP (International Society of Urological Pathology) grade group 1 to 2 and ISUP grade group 2 to 3. Significance was considered at p ≤0.05. Results A total of 166 patients on active surveillance with 2 or more fusion guided biopsies were included in analysis. Mean followup was 25.5 months. Of the patients 29.5% had pathological progression. Targeted biopsy alone identified 44.9% of patients who progressed compared to 30.6% identified by systematic 12-core biopsy alone (p = 0.03). Fusion guided biopsy detected 26% more cases of pathological progression on surveillance biopsy compared to systematic 12-core biopsy. Progression on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was the sole predictor of pathological progression at surveillance biopsy (p = 0.013). Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging progression in the entire cohort had 81% negative predictive value, 35% positive predictive value, 77.6% sensitivity and 40.5% specificity in detecting pathological progression. Conclusions Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging progression predicts the risk of pathological progression. Patients with stable multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings have a low rate of progression. Incorporating fusion guided biopsy in active surveillance nearly doubled our detection of pathological progression compared to systematic 12-core biopsy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose After an initial negative biopsy there is an ongoing need for strategies to improve patient selection for repeat biopsy as well as the diagnostic yield from repeat biopsies. Materials and Methods As a collaborative initiative of the AUA (American Urological Association) and SAR (Society of Abdominal Radiology) Prostate Cancer Disease Focused Panel, an expert panel of urologists and radiologists conducted a literature review and formed consensus statements regarding the role of prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a negative biopsy, which are summarized in this review. Results The panel recognizes that many options exist for men with a previously negative biopsy. If a biopsy is recommended, prostate magnetic resonance imaging and subsequent magnetic resonance imaging targeted cores appear to facilitate the detection of clinically significant disease over standardized repeat biopsy. Thus, when high quality prostate magnetic resonance imaging is available, it should be strongly considered for any patient with a prior negative biopsy who has persistent clinical suspicion for prostate cancer and who is under evaluation for a possible repeat biopsy. The decision of whether to perform magnetic resonance imaging in this setting must also take into account the results of any other biomarkers and the cost of the examination, as well as the availability of high quality prostate magnetic resonance imaging interpretation. If magnetic resonance imaging is done, it should be performed, interpreted and reported in accordance with PI-RADS version 2 (v2) guidelines. Experience of the reporting radiologist and biopsy operator are required to achieve optimal results and practices integrating prostate magnetic resonance imaging into patient care are advised to implement quality assurance programs to monitor targeted biopsy results. Conclusions Patients receiving a PI-RADS assessment category of 3 to 5 warrant repeat biopsy with image guided targeting. While transrectal ultrasound guided magnetic resonance imaging fusion or in-bore magnetic resonance imaging targeting may be valuable for more reliable targeting, especially for lesions that are small or in difficult locations, in the absence of such targeting technologies cognitive (visual) targeting remains a reasonable approach in skilled hands. At least 2 targeted cores should be obtained from each magnetic resonance imaging defined target. Given the number of studies showing a proportion of missed clinically significant cancers by magnetic resonance imaging targeted cores, a case specific decision must be made whether to also perform concurrent systematic sampling. However, performing solely targeted biopsy should only be considered once quality assurance efforts have validated the performance of prostate magnetic resonance imaging interpretations with results consistent with the published literature. In patients with negative or low suspicion magnetic resonance imaging (PI-RADS assessment category of 1 or 2, respectively), other ancillary markers (ie PSA, PSAD, PSAV, PCA3, PHI, 4K) may be of value in identifying patients warranting repeat systematic biopsy, although further data are needed on this topic. If a repeat biopsy is deferred on the basis of magnetic resonance imaging findings, then continued clinical and laboratory followup is advised and consideration should be given to incorporating repeat magnetic resonance imaging in this diagnostic surveillance regimen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) was developed to standardize the interpretation and reporting of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and provide guidelines for biopsy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings. We prospectively evaluated the cancer detection rate at each overall PI-RADSv2 score. Materials and Methods This prospective study included 62 consecutive patients with 116 lesions who underwent multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging at 3T with PI-RADSv2 evaluation and subsequent targeted magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy and concurrent 12-core systematic prostate biopsy between May and September 2015. Median patient age and prostate specific antigen values were 65.5 years (range 50.3 to 76.6) and 7.10 ng/ml (range 0.47 to 863.0), respectively. Mean lesion size was 12.7 mm overall. Lesion based cancer detection rates for all tumors and for Gleason 3+4 or greater tumors at each PI-RADSv2 score were calculated. Univariate analysis was performed to assess differences in the cancer detection rate among PI-RADSv2 scores. Results A total of 116 lesions in 62 patients were evaluated prospectively (0 PI-RADS 1, 18 PI-RADS 2, 19 PI-RADS 3, 47 PI-RADS 4, 32 PI-RADS 5), and the patients underwent magnetic resonance/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy and systematic biopsy. Histopathology revealed 55 of 116 (47.4%) cancers (17 Gleason 3+3, 16 Gleason 3+4, 6 Gleason 4+3, 12 Gleason 4+4, 3 Gleason 4+5 and 1 Gleason 5+4). Based on targeted biopsy on a per lesion basis, the overall cancer detection rates of PI-RADS 2, 3, 4 and 5 scores for all tumors was 22.2%, 15.8%, 29.8% and 78.1%, respectively. The cancer detection rate of PI-RADS 2, 3, 4 and 5 scores for Gleason 3+4 or greater tumors was 5.6%, 0%, 21.3% and 75%, respectively. Differences in the cancer detection rate between overall PI-RADS 4 and 5 scores were significant (p <0.001 for Gleason greater than 3+3 and Gleason 3+4 or greater cancers). Conclusions A PI-RADS score of 5 had the highest prospective cancer detection rate (78%). A PI-RADS score of 4 had only a 30% cancer detection rate, which is lower than expected. Surprisingly, no or few significant cancers were detected at a PI-RADS score of 3 (16%). These early prospective data suggest that current criteria result in a high false-positive rate that lowers the cancer detection rate. Therefore, stricter criteria may be needed in the future to decrease false-positives and increase the cancer detection rate for PI-RADS scores of 3, 4 and 5. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose As the adoption of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided biopsy expands, the reproducibility of outcomes at expert centers becomes essential. We sought to validate the comprehensive NCI (National Cancer Institute) experience with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and fusion guided biopsy in an external, independent, matched cohort of patients. Materials and Methods We compared 620 patients enrolled in a prospective trial comparing systematic biopsy to fusion guided biopsy at NCI to 310 who underwent a similar procedure at Long Island Jewish Medical Center. The propensity score, defined as the probability of being treated outside NCI, was calculated using the estimated logistic regression model. Patients from the hospital were matched 1:1 for age, prostate specific antigen, magnetic resonance imaging suspicion score and prior negative biopsies. Clinically significant disease was defined as Gleason 3 + 4 or greater. Results Before matching we found differences between the cohorts in age, magnetic resonance imaging suspicion score (each p <0.001), the number of patients with prior negative biopsies (p = 0.01), and the overall cancer detection rate and the cancer detection rate by fusion guided biopsy (each p <0.001). No difference was found in the rates of upgrading by fusion guided biopsy (p = 0.28) or upgrading to clinically significant disease (p = 0.95). A statistically significant difference remained in the overall cancer detection rate and the rate by fusion guided biopsy after matching. On subgroup analysis we found a difference in the overall cancer detection rate and the rate by fusion guided biopsy (p <0.001 and 0.003) in patients with prior negative systematic biopsy but no difference in the 2 rates (p = 0.39 and 0.51, respectively) in biopsy naïve patients. Conclusions Improved detection of clinically significant cancer by magnetic resonance imaging and fusion guided biopsy is reproducible by an experienced multidisciplinary team consisting of dedicated radiologists and urologists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Men diagnosed with atypical small acinar proliferation are counseled to undergo early rebiopsy because the risk of prostate cancer is high. However, random rebiopsies may not resample areas of concern. Magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy offers an opportunity to accurately target and later retarget specific areas in the prostate. We describe the ability of magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy to detect prostate cancer in areas with an initial diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation. Materials and Methods Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate and magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy were performed in 1,028 patients from March 2007 to February 2014. Of the men 20 met the stringent study inclusion criteria, which were no prostate cancer history, index biopsy showing at least 1 core of atypical small acinar proliferation with benign glands in all remaining cores and fusion targeted rebiopsy with at least 1 targeted core directly resampling an area of the prostate that previously contained atypical small acinar proliferation. Results At index biopsy median age of the 20 patients was 60 years (IQR 57–64) and median prostate specific antigen was 5.92 ng/ml (IQR 3.34–7.48). At fusion targeted rebiopsy at a median of 11.6 months 5 of 20 patients (25%, 95% CI 6.02–43.98) were diagnosed with primary Gleason grade 3, low volume prostate cancer. On fusion rebiopsy cores that directly retargeted areas of previous atypical small acinar proliferation detected the highest tumor burden. Conclusions When magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy detects isolated atypical small acinar proliferation on index biopsy, early rebiopsy is unlikely to detect clinically significant prostate cancer. Cores that retarget areas of previous atypical small acinar proliferation are more effective than random rebiopsy cores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is commonly used for anatomical visualization in the pelvis area, such as the prostate, with high soft-tissue contrast. MRI can also provide functional information such as diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) which depicts the molecular diffusion processes in biological tissues. The combination of anatomical and functional imaging techniques is widely used in oncology, e.g., for prostate cancer diagnosis and staging. However, acquisition-specific distortions as well as physiological motion lead to misalignments between T2 and DWI and consequently to a reduced diagnostic value. Image registration algorithms are commonly employed to correct for such misalignment. Methods: The authors compare the performance of five state-of-the-art nonrigid image registration techniques for accurate image fusion of DWI with T2. Results: Image data of 20 prostate patients with cancerous lesions or cysts were acquired. All registration algorithms were validated using intensity-based as well as landmark-based techniques. Conclusions: The authors' results show that the "fast elastic image registration" provides most accurate results with a target registration error of 1.07 ± 0.41 mm at minimum execution times of 11 ± 1s. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment is fast emerging as a major health care issue in the United States. However, there are great uncertainties about the value of specific tests and therapies. Imaging modalities play a major role in the current management of patients with prostate cancer and this role is likely to expand in the future. Transrectal ultrasound is used to identify nonpalpable lesions, direct systematic biopsies, determine gland volume and stage prostate cancers. For staging skeletal metastases, the bone scan is acknowledged as the best method, however controversy surrounds its routine use in patients with low prostate specific antigen (PSA) values. Computed tomography (CT) and transrectal ultrasound have limited value in detecting extracapsular disease but CT can be used in conjunction with percutaneous biopsy to identify nodal metastases. The role of Endorectal coil MRI is currently evolving in the wake of a disappointing multi-institutional trial but MRI still holds the most promise for accurately detecting local extent of prostate cancer. New radiolabeled techniques with monoclonal antibodies and peptide imaging are also having early but promising results. The role of imaging in prostate cancer is continuing to evolve as technology and knowledge about prostate cancer biology improves and health care economics force a more judicious use of imaging resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Patients with an enlarged prostate and suspicion of prostate cancer pose a diagnostic dilemma. The prostate cancer detection rate of systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy is between 30% and 40%. For prostates greater than 40 cc this decreases to 30% or less. Magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy has shown superior prostate cancer detection rates. We defined the detection rate of magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy in men with an enlarged prostate gland. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the records of patients who underwent multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging followed by magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy at our institution. Whole prostate volumes were calculated using magnetic resonance imaging reconstructions. Detection rates were analyzed with respect to age, prostate specific antigen and whole prostate volumes. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess these parameters as independent predictors of prostate cancer detection. Results: We analyzed 649 patients with a mean ± SD age of 61.8 ± 7.9 years and a median prostate specific antigen of 6.65 ng/ml (IQR 4.35–11.0). Mean whole prostate volume was 58.7 ± 34.3 cc. The overall detection rate of the magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion platform was 55%. For prostates less than 40 cc the detection rate was 71.1% compared to 57.5%, 46.9%, 46.9% 33.3%, 36.4% and 30.4% for glands 40 to 54.9, 55 to 69.9, 70 to 84.9, 85 to 99.9, 100 to 114.9 and 115 cc or greater, respectively (p <0.0001). Multivariable logistic regression showed a significant inverse association of magnetic resonance imaging volume with prostate cancer detection, controlling for age and prostate specific antigen. Conclusions: Transrectal ultrasound guided and fusion biopsy cancer detection rates decreased with increasing prostate volume. However, magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy had a higher prostate cancer detection rate compared to that of transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy in the literature. Magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy represents a promising solution for patients with suspicion of prostate cancer and an enlarged prostate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Patients with negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies and a persistent clinical suspicion are at risk for occult but significant prostate cancer. The ability of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy to detect these occult prostate lesions may make it an effective tool in this challenging scenario. Materials and Methods: Between March 2007 and November 2011 all men underwent prostate 3 T endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging. All concerning lesions were targeted with magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy. In addition, all patients underwent standard 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Men with 1 or more negative systematic prostate biopsies were included in our cohort. Results: Of the 195 men with previous negative biopsies, 73 (37%) were found to have cancer using the magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy combined with 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. High grade cancer (Gleason score 8+) was discovered in 21 men (11%), all of whom had disease detected with magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy. However, standard transrectal ultrasound biopsy missed 12 of these high grade cancers (55%). Pathological upgrading occurred in 28 men (38.9%) as a result of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion targeting vs standard transrectal ultrasound biopsy. The diagnostic yield of combined magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion platform was unrelated to the number of previous negative biopsies and persisted despite increasing the number of previous biopsy sessions. On multivariate analysis only prostate specific antigen density and magnetic resonance imaging suspicion level remained significant predictors of cancer. Conclusions: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with a magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy platform is a novel diagnostic tool for detecting prostate cancer and may be ideally suited for patients with negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies in the face of a persistent clinical suspicion for cancer. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose: The biology of prostate cancer may be influenced by the index lesion. The definition of index lesion volume is important for appropriate decision making, especially for image guided focal treatment. We determined the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for determining index tumor volume compared with volumes derived from histopathology. Materials and Methods: We evaluated 135 patients (mean age 59.3 years) with a mean prostate specific antigen of 6.74 ng/dl who underwent multiparametric 3T endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate and subsequent radical prostatectomy. Index tumor volume was determined prospectively and independently by magnetic resonance imaging and histopathology. The ellipsoid formula was applied to determine histopathology tumor volume, whereas manual tumor segmentation was used to determine magnetic resonance tumor volume. Histopathology tumor volume was correlated with age and prostate specific antigen whereas magnetic resonance tumor volume involved Pearson correlation and linear regression methods. In addition, the predictive power of magnetic resonance tumor volume, prostate specific antigen and age for estimating histopathology tumor volume (greater than 0.5 cm3) was assessed by ROC analysis. The same analysis was also conducted for the 1.15 shrinkage factor corrected histopathology data set. Results: There was a positive correlation between histopathology tumor volume and magnetic resonance tumor volume (Pearson coefficient 0.633, p <0.0001), but a weak correlation between prostate specific antigen and histopathology tumor volume (Pearson coefficient 0.237, p = 0.003). On linear regression analysis histopathology tumor volume and magnetic resonance tumor volume were correlated (r2 = 0.401, p <0.00001). On ROC analysis AUC values for magnetic resonance tumor volume, prostate specific antigen and age in estimating tumors larger than 0.5 cm3 at histopathology were 0.949 (p <0.0000001), 0.685 (p = 0.001) and 0.627 (p = 0.02), respectively. Similar results were found in the analysis with shrinkage factor corrected tumor volumes at histopathology. Conclusions: Magnetic resonance imaging can accurately estimate index tumor volume as determined by histology. Magnetic resonance imaging has better accuracy in predicting histopathology tumor volume in tumors larger than 0.5 cm3 than prostate specific antigen and age. Index tumor volume as determined by magnetic resonance imaging may be helpful in planning treatment, specifically in identifying tumor margins for image guided focal therapy and possibly selecting better active surveillance candidates. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose: We determined the prostate cancer detection rate of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at 3T. Precise one-to-one histopathological correlation with magnetic resonance imaging was possible using prostate magnetic resonance imaging based custom printed specimen molds after radical prostatectomy. Materials and Methods: This institutional review board approved prospective study included 45 patients (mean age 60.2 years, range 49 to 75) with a mean prostate specific antigen of 6.37 ng/ml (range 2.3 to 23.7) who had biopsy proven prostate cancer (mean Gleason score of 6.7, range 6 to 9). Before prostatectomy all patients underwent prostate magnetic resonance imaging using endorectal and surface coils on a 3T scanner, which included triplane T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging, apparent diffusion coefficient maps of diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging, dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy. The prostate specimen was whole mount sectioned in a customized mold, allowing geometric alignment to magnetic resonance imaging. Tumors were mapped on magnetic resonance imaging and histopathology. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging for cancer detection were calculated. In addition, the effects of tumor size and Gleason score on the sensitivity of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging were evaluated. Results: The positive predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect prostate cancer was 98%, 98% and 100% in the overall prostate, peripheral zone and central gland, respectively. The sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging sequences was higher for tumors larger than 5 mm in diameter as well as for those with higher Gleason scores (greater than 7, p <0.05). Conclusions: Prostate magnetic resonance imaging at 3T allows for the detection of prostate cancer. A multiparametric approach increases the predictive power of magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis. In this study accurate correlation between multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and histopathology was obtained by the patient specific, magnetic resonance imaging based mold technique. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose: A novel platform was developed that fuses pre-biopsy magnetic resonance imaging with real-time transrectal ultrasound imaging to identify and biopsy lesions suspicious for prostate cancer. The cancer detection rates for the first 101 patients are reported. Materials and Methods: This prospective, single institution study was approved by the institutional review board. Patients underwent 3.0 T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with endorectal coil, which included T2-weighted, spectroscopic, dynamic contrast enhanced and diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging sequences. Lesions suspicious for cancer were graded according to the number of sequences suspicious for cancer as low (2 or less), moderate (3) and high (4) suspicion. Patients underwent standard 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy and magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided biopsy with electromagnetic tracking of magnetic resonance imaging lesions. Chi-square and within cluster resampling analyses were used to correlate suspicion on magnetic resonance imaging and the incidence of cancer detected on biopsy. Results: Mean patient age was 63 years old. Median prostate specific antigen at biopsy was 5.8 ng/ml and 90.1% of patients had a negative digital rectal examination. Of patients with low, moderate and high suspicion on magnetic resonance imaging 27.9%, 66.7% and 89.5% were diagnosed with cancer, respectively (p <0.0001). Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided biopsy detected more cancer per core than standard 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy for all levels of suspicion on magnetic resonance imaging. Conclusions: Prostate cancer localized on magnetic resonance imaging may be targeted using this novel magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided biopsy platform. Further research is needed to determine the role of this platform in cancer detection, active surveillance and focal therapy, and to determine which patients may benefit. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The article offers information on the use of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for early detection and localization of prostate cancer. It discusses the multiparametric MR approach implemented at the National Cancer Institute's Molecular Imaging Clinic, which includes T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted imaging, MR spectroscopy and Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Computed Tomography/Magnetic Resonance (DCE-MR) imaging. Interpretation of 3-plane prostate MR is also discussed.

Prostate cancer, one of the most common forms of cancer among men, can benefit from recent improvements in positron emission tomography (PET) technology. In particular, better spatial resolution, lower noise and higher detectability of small lesions could be greatly beneficial for early diagnosis and could provide a strong support for guiding biopsy and surgery. In this article, the impact of improved PET instrumentation with superior spatial resolution and high sensitivity are discussed, together with the latest development in PET technology: resolution recovery and time-of-flight reconstruction. Using simulated cancer lesions, inserted in clinical PET images obtained with conventional protocols, we show that visual identification of the lesions and detectability via numerical observers can already be improved using state of the art PET reconstruction methods. This was achieved using both resolution recovery and time-of-flight reconstruction, and a high resolution image with 2 mm pixel size. Channelized Hotelling numerical observers showed an increase in the area under the LROC curve from 0.52 to 0.58. In addition, a relationship between the simulated input activity and the area under the LROC curve showed that the minimum detectable activity was reduced by more than 23%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]