4.4 Article

Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: Correlation with morphology and tumour stage, histological grade and PSA

Journal

CLINICAL RADIOLOGY
Volume 55, Issue 2, Pages 99-109

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1053/crad.1999.0327

Keywords

magnetic resonance (MR); contrast enhancement; tissue characterization; prostate; neoplasms; hyperplasia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM: To quantify MRI enhancement characteristics of normal and abnormal prostatic tissues and to correlate these with tumour stage, histological grade and tumour markers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Quantitative gradient recalled echo MR images were obtained following bolus injection of gadopentetate dimeglumine in 48 patients with prostate cancer. Turbo spin-echo T2-weighted images at the same anatomical position were reviewed for the presence of tumours (45 regions), normal peripheral zone (33 regions), and normal appearing central gland (30 regions), Time-signal intensity parameters (onset time, mean gradient and maximal amplitude of enhancement and wash-out score) and modelling parameters (permeability surface area product, lesion leakage space and maximum gadolinium concentration) were correlated with tumour stage, histological grade (Gleason score) and serum prostatic specific antigen (PSA) levels. RESULTS: Significant differences were noted between peripheral zone and tumour with respect to signal intensity and modelling parameters (P = 0.0001), except onset time. No differences between central gland and tumour enhancement values were seen, There was weak correlation between MRI tumour stage and tumour vascular permeability (r(2) = 12%; P = 0.02) and maximum tumour gadolinium concentration (r(2) = 14%; P = 0.015). However, no significant correlations were seen with Gleason score or PSA levels. CONCLUSION: Quantification of MR contrast enhancement characteristics allows tissue discrimination in prostate cancer consistent with known variations in microvessel density estimates. Padhani, A. R. et al. (2000). (C) 2000 The Royal College of Radiologists.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available