Iranian Journal of Radiology

Published by: Kowsar

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Prostate Cancer: Association of Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Parameters with Histopathologic Findings

Iraj Abedi 1 , Mohammad Bagher Tavakkoli 1 , * , Masoud Rabbani 2 , Keyvan Jabbari 1 , Mehri Sirous 2 and Ghasem Yadegar Far 3
Authors Information
1 Medical Physics Faculty, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 Radiology Faculty, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
3 Health Faculty, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
Article information
  • Iranian Journal of Radiology: July 2017, 14 (3); e37844
  • Published Online: October 3, 2016
  • Article Type: Research Article
  • Received: April 24, 2016
  • Revised: August 5, 2016
  • Accepted: August 15, 2016
  • DOI: 10.5812/iranjradiol.37844

To Cite: Abedi I, Tavakkoli M B, Rabbani M, Jabbari K, Sirous M, et al. Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Prostate Cancer: Association of Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Parameters with Histopathologic Findings, Iran J Radiol. 2017 ; 14(3):e37844. doi: 10.5812/iranjradiol.37844.

Copyright © 2016, Tehran University of Medical Sciences and Iranian Society of Radiology. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License ( which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited.
1. Background
2. Objectives
3. Patients and Methods
4. Results
5. Discussion
  • 1. Turkbey B, Mani H, Shah V, Rastinehad AR, Bernardo M, Pohida T, et al. Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. J Urol. 2011; 186(5): 1818-24[DOI][PubMed]
  • 2. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason M, Matveev V, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol. 2011; 59(1): 61-71[DOI][PubMed]
  • 3. Murphy G, Haider M, Ghai S, Sreeharsha B. The expanding role of MRI in prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013; 201(6): 1229-38[DOI][PubMed]
  • 4. Eggener SE, Mueller A, Berglund RK, Ayyathurai R, Soloway C, Soloway MS, et al. A multi-institutional evaluation of active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2013; 189(1 Suppl)-25[DOI][PubMed]
  • 5. Egevad L, Granfors T, Karlberg L, Bergh A, Stattin P. Prognostic value of the Gleason score in prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2002; 89(6): 538-42[PubMed]
  • 6. Narain V, Bianco FJ, Grignon DJ, Sakr WA, Pontes JE, Wood DJ. How accurately does prostate biopsy Gleason score predict pathologic findings and disease free survival? Prostate. 2001; 49(3): 185-90[PubMed]
  • 7. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, et al. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology. 2011; 259(2): 453-61[DOI][PubMed]
  • 8. Rajinikanth A, Manoharan M, Soloway CT, Civantos FJ, Soloway MS. Trends in Gleason score: concordance between biopsy and prostatectomy over 15 years. Urology. 2008; 72(1): 177-82[DOI][PubMed]
  • 9. Kvale R, Moller B, Wahlqvist R, Fossa SD, Berner A, Busch C, et al. Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population-based study. BJU Int. 2009; 103(12): 1647-54[DOI][PubMed]
  • 10. Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, Nelson JB, Egevad L, Magi-Galluzzi C, et al. A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score. Eur Urol. 2016; 69(3): 428-35[DOI][PubMed]
  • 11. Johnson LM, Turkbey B, Figg WD, Choyke PL. Multiparametric MRI in prostate cancer management. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2014; 11(6): 346-53[DOI][PubMed]
  • 12. Futterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P, Emberton M, Giannarini G, Kirkham A, et al. Can Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Be Detected with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging? A Systematic Review of the Literature. Eur Urol. 2015; 68(6): 1045-53[DOI][PubMed]
  • 13. Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, Yakar D, Somford DM, Heijmink SW, et al. Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology. 2011; 261(1): 46-66[DOI][PubMed]
  • 14. Yoshizako T, Wada A, Hayashi T, Uchida K, Sumura M, Uchida N, et al. Usefulness of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate transition-zone cancer. Acta Radiol. 2008; 49(10): 1207-13[DOI][PubMed]
  • 15. Jia JB, Houshyar R, Verma S, Uchio E, Lall C. Prostate cancer on computed tomography: A direct comparison with multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging and tissue pathology. Eur J Radiol. 2016; 85(1): 261-7[DOI][PubMed]
  • 16. Peng Y, Jiang Y, Yang C, Brown JB, Antic T, Sethi I, et al. Quantitative analysis of multiparametric prostate MR images: differentiation between prostate cancer and normal tissue and correlation with Gleason score--a computer-aided diagnosis development study. Radiology. 2013; 267(3): 787-96[DOI][PubMed]
  • 17. Reisaeter LA, Futterer JJ, Halvorsen OJ, Nygard Y, Biermann M, Andersen E, et al. 1.5-T multiparametric MRI using PI-RADS: a region by region analysis to localize the index-tumor of prostate cancer in patients undergoing prostatectomy. Acta Radiol. 2015; 56(4): 500-11[DOI][PubMed]
  • 18. Kobus T, Wright AJ, Weiland E, Heerschap A, Scheenen TW. Metabolite ratios in 1H MR spectroscopic imaging of the prostate. Magn Reson Med. 2015; 73(1): 1-12[DOI][PubMed]
  • 19. Li W, Moore II BM. The Effect of Arvanil on Prostate Cancer Cells Studied by Whole Cell High Resolution Magic Angle Spinning NMR. Modern Chem Applicat. 2014; 2014
  • 20. Tofts PS, Wicks DA, Barker GJ. The MRI measurement of NMR and physiological parameters in tissue to study disease process. Prog Clin Biol Res. 1991; 363: 313-25[PubMed]
  • 21. van Dorsten FA, van der Graaf M, Engelbrecht MR, van Leenders GJ, Verhofstad A, Rijpkema M, et al. Combined quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and (1)H MR spectroscopic imaging of human prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004; 20(2): 279-87[DOI][PubMed]
  • 22. Knopp MV, Giesel FL, Marcos H, von Tengg-Kobligk H, Choyke P. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in oncology. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2001; 12(4): 301-8[PubMed]
  • 23. Hoogland AM, Kweldam CF, van Leenders GJ. Prognostic histopathological and molecular markers on prostate cancer needle-biopsies: a review. Biomed Res Int. 2014; 2014: 341324[DOI][PubMed]
  • 24. Fedorov A, Penzkofer T, Hirsch MS, Flood TA, Vangel MG, Masry P, et al. The role of pathology correlation approach in prostate cancer index lesion detection and quantitative analysis with multiparametric MRI. Acad Radiol. 2015; 22(5): 548-55[DOI][PubMed]
  • 25. Heidenreich A, Abrahamsson PA, Artibani W, Catto J, Montorsi F, Van Poppel H, et al. Early detection of prostate cancer: European Association of Urology recommendation. Eur Urol. 2013; 64(3): 347-54[DOI][PubMed]
  • 26. Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y, Toshimitsu S, Yamashita T, Yamamoto A, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient values in peripheral and transition zones of the prostate: comparison between normal and malignant prostatic tissues and correlation with histologic grade. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008; 28(3): 720-6[DOI][PubMed]
  • 27. Margel D, Yap SA, Lawrentschuk N, Klotz L, Haider M, Hersey K, et al. Impact of multiparametric endorectal coil prostate magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates: a prospective cohort study. J Urol. 2012; 187(4): 1247-52[DOI][PubMed]
  • 28. Steinberg DM, Sauvageot J, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI. Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am J Surg Pathol. 1997; 21(5): 566-76[PubMed]
  • 29. Freedland SJ, Kane CJ, Amling CL, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, Presti JJ, et al. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications. Urology. 2007; 69(3): 495-9[DOI][PubMed]
  • 30. Oto A, Yang C, Kayhan A, Tretiakova M, Antic T, Schmid-Tannwald C, et al. Diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation of quantitative MR parameters with Gleason score and tumor angiogenesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 197(6): 1382-90[DOI][PubMed]
  • 31. Brawer MK, Deering RE, Brown M, Preston SD, Bigler SA. Predictors of pathologic stage in prostatic carcinoma. The role of neovascularity. Cancer. 1994; 73(3): 678-87[PubMed]
  • 32. Gettman MT, Pacelli A, Slezak J, Bergstralh EJ, Blute M, Zincke H, et al. Role of microvessel density in predicting recurrence in pathologic Stage T3 prostatic adenocarcinoma. Urology. 1999; 54(3): 479-85[PubMed]
  • 33. Weidner N, Carroll PR, Flax J, Blumenfeld W, Folkman J. Tumor angiogenesis correlates with metastasis in invasive prostate carcinoma. Am J Pathol. 1993; 143(2): 401-9[PubMed]
  • 34. Mucci LA, Powolny A, Giovannucci E, Liao Z, Kenfield SA, Shen R, et al. Prospective study of prostate tumor angiogenesis and cancer-specific mortality in the health professionals follow-up study. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27(33): 5627-33[DOI][PubMed]
  • 35. Bigler SA, Deering RE, Brawer MK. Comparison of microscopic vascularity in benign and malignant prostate tissue. Hum Pathol. 1993; 24(2): 220-6[PubMed]
  • 36. Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL, Evelhoch JL, Henderson E, Knopp MV, et al. 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[PubMed]
  • 37. Vos PC, Hambrock T, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Futterer JJ, Barentsz JO, Huisman HJ. Computerized analysis of prostate lesions in the peripheral zone using dynamic contrast enhanced MRI. Med Phys. 2008; 35(3): 888-99[DOI][PubMed]
  • 38. Tretiakova M, Antic T, Binder D, Kocherginsky M, Liao C, Taxy JB, et al. Microvessel density is not increased in prostate cancer: digital imaging of routine sections and tissue microarrays. Hum Pathol. 2013; 44(4): 495-502[DOI][PubMed]
  • 39. Oto A, Kayhan A, Jiang Y, Tretiakova M, Yang C, Antic T, et al. Prostate cancer: differentiation of central gland cancer from benign prostatic hyperplasia by using diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2010; 257(3): 715-23[DOI][PubMed]
  • 40. Turkbey B, Pinto PA, Mani H, Bernardo M, Pang Y, McKinney YL, et al. Prostate cancer: value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection--histopathologic correlation. Radiology. 2010; 255(1): 89-99[DOI][PubMed]
  • 41. Padhani AR, Gapinski CJ, Macvicar DA, Parker GJ, Suckling J, Revell PB, et al. Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation with morphology and tumour stage, histological grade and PSA. Clin Radiol. 2000; 55(2): 99-109[DOI][PubMed]
  • 42. Panych LP, Roebuck JR, Chen NK, Tang Y, Madore B, Tempany CM, et al. Investigation of the PSF-choice method for reduced lipid contamination in prostate MR spectroscopic imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2012; 68(5): 1376-82[DOI][PubMed]
  • 43. King CR, McNeal JE, Gill H, Presti JJ. Extended prostate biopsy scheme improves reliability of Gleason grading: implications for radiotherapy patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004; 59(2): 386-91[DOI][PubMed]
  • 44. Russo F, Mazzetti S, Grignani G, De Rosa G, Aglietta M, Anselmetti GC, et al. In vivo characterisation of soft tissue tumours by 1.5-T proton MR spectroscopy. Eur Radiol. 2012; 22(5): 1131-9[DOI][PubMed]
  • 45. Zakian KL, Sircar K, Hricak H, Chen HN, Shukla-Dave A, Eberhardt S, et al. Correlation of proton MR spectroscopic imaging with gleason score based on step-section pathologic analysis after radical prostatectomy. Radiology. 2005; 234(3): 804-14[DOI][PubMed]
  • 46. Engelbrecht MR, Jager GJ, Laheij RJ, Verbeek AL, van Lier HJ, Barentsz JO. Local staging of prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2002; 12(9): 2294-302[DOI][PubMed]
  • 47. Wang P, Guo YM, Liu M, Qiang YQ, Guo XJ, Zhang YL, et al. A meta-analysis of the accuracy of prostate cancer studies which use magnetic resonance spectroscopy as a diagnostic tool. Korean J Radiol. 2008; 9(5): 432-8[DOI][PubMed]
Creative Commons License Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 4.0 International License .

Search Relations:



Create Citiation Alert
via Google Reader

Readers' Comments