- Open Access
False positive and false negative diagnoses of prostate cancer at multi-parametric prostate MRI in active surveillance
© The Author(s) 2015
- Received: 7 January 2015
- Accepted: 8 May 2015
- Published: 23 May 2015
MP-MRI is a critical component in active surveillance (AS) of prostate cancer (PCa) because of a high negative predictive value for clinically significant tumours. This review illustrates pitfalls of MP-MRI and how to recognise and avoid them. The anterior fibromuscular stroma and central zone are low signal on T2W-MRI/apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), resembling PCa. Location, progressive enhancement and low signal on b ≥1000 mm²/s echo-planar images (EPI) are differentiating features. BPH can mimic PCa. Glandular BPH shows increased T2W/ADC signal, cystic change and progressive enhancement; however, stromal BPH resembles transition zone (TZ) PCa. A rounded morphology, low T2 signal capsule and posterior/superior location favour stromal BPH. Acute/chronic prostatitis mimics PCa at MP-MRI, with differentiation mainly on clinical grounds. Visual analysis of diffusion-weighted MRI must include EPI and appropriate windowing of ADC. Quantitative ADC analysis is limited by lack of standardization; the ADC ratio and ADC histogram analysis are alternatives to mean values. DCE lacks standardisation and has limited utility in the TZ, where T2W/DWI are favoured. Targeted TRUS-guided biopsies of MR-detected lesions are challenging. Lesions detected on MP-MRI may not be perfectly targeted with TRUS and this must be considered when faced with a suspicious lesion on MP-MRI and a negative targeted TRUS biopsy histopathological result.
• Multi-parametric MRI plays a critical role in prostate cancer active surveillance.
• Low T2W signal intensity structures appear dark on ADC, potentially simulating cancer.
• Stromal BPH mimics cancer at DWI and DCE.
• Long b value trace EPI should be reviewed
• Targeted biopsy of MR-detected lesions using TRUS guidance may be challenging.
- Prostate cancer
- Active surveillance of prostate cancer
- Multi-parametric MRI
- Targeted biopsy
- Diffusion-weighted imaging
Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer among males in North America [1, 2] and the most common solid neoplasm in Europe . PCa is typically diagnosed with non-targeted systematic trans-rectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy in patients with an elevated prostate serum antigen (PSA) level and/or abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE). The management of a particular patient with PCa is multi-factorial and patient specific due to the biological heterogeneity of PCa. Traditional treatment of PCa varies from radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy (RT) to watchful waiting (delayed symptomatic non-curative treatment of apparently localised PCa in males who are not candidates for aggressive local therapy) [1, 3]. Active surveillance (AS) is defined as the expectant management (deferred immediate therapy) of PCa in carefully selected males with localised disease considered to be at low risk for progression . AS differs from watchful waiting because definitive treatment is used in patients managed with AS when there is evidence that the patient is at an increased risk for disease progression [4, 5]. AS has become the treatment of choice for low-grade, low-volume tumours [6, 7] and is heavily reliant on accurate detection of tumour, accurate estimate of tumour volume and accurate Gleason grading of tumour [6, 7].
Non-targeted TRUS-guided biopsy typically obtains 6–12 core biopsies of the peripheral zone (PZ), which harbours approximately 70 % of cancers [1, 8]. The limitations of non-targeted TRUS-guided biopsy are well known  with an estimated 20 % false-negative rate [9–11]. Furthermore, non-targeted TRUS-guided biopsy may yield unreliable information regarding the volume, extent and aggressiveness of PCa; it is has been reported that up to 30–45 % of patients are upgraded/upstaged from their initial diagnosis at TRUS-guided needle biopsy after RP . Moreover, certain areas of the prostate gland [i.e., the anterior gland, transition zone (TZ) and apex] are known to be under-sampled or not sampled at all at routine non-targeted TRUS-guided biopsy and are now increasingly being recognised as areas that may contain clinically significant (CS) tumours . These limitations are of critical importance in AS, where treatment decisions are based on risk stratification and dependent on accurate Gleason grading of tumours .
Sequence parameters for multi-parametric MRI of the prostate protocol performed with a pelvic surface coila at 3 Tb
Field of view (mm)
Slice thickness/gap (mm)
Echo train length
Receiver bandwidth (Hz/voxel)
Acquisition time (min)
Number of signals averaged
350 × 350
320 × 320
T1 3D dual-echo GREd
240 × 240
292 × 224
220 × 220
320 × 256
4.0/0 3.0/0 3.0/0
280 × 280
128 × 80
T1 GREf dynamic contrast
220 × 220
128 × 128
A variety of interpretive and technical pitfalls may be encountered at MP-MRI of the prostate. A failure to recognise and correct these errors in AS patients can result in suboptimal care. False-positive diagnoses of areas of potential cancers at MP-MRI create clinical uncertainty and often lead to multiple unnecessary biopsies or in certain cases surgical management of low-grade, low-volume disease. Moreover, a failure to recognise clinically significant cancers in males being considered for or treated with AS could result in suboptimal patient outcomes. The purpose of this review is to illustrate both interpretive and technical pitfalls encountered at MP-MRI in the active surveillance population and how to detect, correct and avoid them.
Normal anatomic structures can mimic anterior and TZ cancers
Post-biopsy haemorrhage can mimic PZ PCa on T2W MRI
Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) resembles TZ PCa
BPH is extremely common in the TZ and its prevalence increases with age. BPH can be nodular and TZ nodules are commonly encountered at MP-MRI , and nodular BPH may mimic TZ PCa . Nodular BPH is categorised into three main subtypes: glandular, stromal and mixed.
At histopathology and MP-MRI, it is more common to identify a TZ BPH nodule with features of both glandular and stromal BPH. Typically one pattern (glandular or stromal) will predominate; however, features of both types of BPH can be seen within the same nodule, which can further complicate the diagnosis. In cases of mixed BPH, a combination of imaging features of glandular and stromal BPH are encountered . Usually, the presence of increased T2W SI and cystic change (from glandular BPH) within a lesion are reassuring findings of BPH (Fig. 7) since these findings are rarely encountered in PCa.
Acute and chronic prostatitis mimics PCa
Ductal variant adenocarcinoma may be occult on T2W MRI
T2W motion correction with radial acquisition obscures some PCa
Visual/quantitative analysis of DWI for tumour detection/grading is complex
DCE lacks standardisation and is limited in the TZ
DCE improves the detection of PCa and DCE parameters correlate with PCa grade [69–71]. Currently, there is no established interpretation criteria for DCE analysis which varies from simple visual analysis to semi-quantitative analysis to full quantitative pharmacokinetic modelling . A recent study demonstrated that DCE is underutilised in clinical practice compared to DWI and that semi-quantitative and quantitative analyses were not commonly used . In the revised PI-RADS v2.0 guidelines, DCE analysis has been modified from semi-quantitative curve analysis to a simple visual analysis .
Targeted biopsy of MR-detected lesions using TRUS-guidance is challenging
MP-MRI for PCa has transformed practice, but has created new challenges. Obtaining accurate histological correlation from lesions detected at MP-MRI may be challenging. MRI guided biopsy is accurate; however, this technique is limited by cost, availability of and access to MRI, prolonged procedure times and patient discomfort . The use of TRUS guidance for biopsy of MP-MRI-detected lesions is currently a preferred option.
The use of Fusion software (which automatically integrates MP-MRI data with real-time 3D TRUS images) provides an alternative to cognitive registration . Fusion software is not without its own limitations including mainly errors in fusion that relate to the spatial deformation of the prostate at TRUS compared to mp-MRI . Moreover, this technology is expensive and at the moment is available in a few specialised centres, although availability is increasing. Studies comparing cognitively registered targeted TRUS biopsy to software fused targeted TRUS biopsy are lacking and have shown mixed results. While several studies have shown no difference between CR and Fusion software [73, 74], other studies have shown an improvement in the detection rate of cancer using fusion software systems [75, 76].
It is critical to emphasise that when a targeted TRUS-guided biopsy performed for a suspicious lesion detected on MP-MRI (using either cognitive registration or fusion software) is negative, the MP-MRI should be reviewed in the context of the biopsy results and other clinical factors in order to consider the possibility of an erroneous targeted biopsy. In these instances, repeat MRI or targeted biopsies can be contemplated.
In conclusion, MP-MRI has become a critical component for patients being considered for or enrolled in active surveillance protocols for the management of low-grade and low-volume prostate cancers. MP-MRI is a proven imaging modality that can detect clinically significant foci of prostate cancer with high degrees of accuracy; the high negative predictive value of MP-MRI is particularly well suited for the AS of PCa. A number of pitfalls, both interpretive and technical, may be encountered at MP-MRI of the prostate and a failure to recognise these pitfalls in the AS population can result in suboptimal patient care. Targeted biopsies of MP-MR-detected lesions poses a new challenge and opportunity in clinical practice. The limitations of TRUS-guidance for lesion detection during targeted biopsies should be acknowledged in order to improve the diagnostic yield of targeted biopsies. A thorough understanding of these MP-MRI pitfalls is important for the MR practitioner involved in the management of prostate cancer.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
- National Comprehensive Cancer Network NCCN (2012) Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. Fort Washington, PA. Available via http://www.nccn.com/files/cancer-guidelines/prostate/index.html#/1. Accessed Sept. 13 2013
- Prostate Cancer Canada (2014) Prostate cancer Canada network. Toronto, ON Canada. Available via http://prostatecancer.ca. Accessed Sept. 2014
- European Association of Urology (EAU) (2012) Guidelines on prostate cancer. Arnhem, The Netherlands. Available via http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/08%20Prostate%20Cancer_LR%20March%2013th%202012.pdf
- Thomsen FB, Brasso K, Klotz LH, Roder MA, Berg KD, Iversen P (2014) Active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer–a systematic review. J Surg Oncol 109:830–835PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al (2011) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 59:61–71PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cancer Care Ontario CCO (2012) Prostate cancer treatment pathway. Toronto, ON, Canada. Available via http://www.cancercare.on.ca/common/pages/UserFile.aspx?fileID=298448. Accessed Sept. 2014
- National Institutes of Health NIH (2011) Role of Active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. Bethesda, Maryland. Available via http://consensus.nih.gov/2011/prostate.htm. Accessed Sept. 2014
- Rothwax JT, George AK, Wood BJ, Pinto PA (2014) Multiparametric MRI in biopsy guidance for prostate cancer: fusion-guided. Biomed Res Int 2014:439171PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Eskew LA, Bare RL, McCullough DL (1997) Systematic 5 region prostate biopsy is superior to sextant method for diagnosing carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 157:199–202, discussion 202–193 PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Presti JC Jr, O’Dowd GJ, Miller MC, Mattu R, Veltri RW (2003) Extended peripheral zone biopsy schemes increase cancer detection rates and minimize variance in prostate specific antigen and age related cancer rates: results of a community multi-practice study. J Urol 169:125–129PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Babaian RJ, Toi A, Kamoi K et al (2000) A comparative analysis of sextant and an extended 11-core multisite directed biopsy strategy. J Urol 163:152–157PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Noguchi M, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM (2001) Relationship between systematic biopsies and histological features of 222 radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prediction of tumor significance for men with nonpalpable prostate cancer. J Urol 166:104–109, discussion 109–110 PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bott SR, Young MP, Kellett MJ, Parkinson MC (2002) Anterior prostate cancer: is it more difficult to diagnose? BJU Int 89:886–889PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Eberhardt SC, Carter S, Casalino DD et al (2013) ACR appropriateness criteria prostate cancer–pretreatment detection, staging, and surveillance. J Am Coll Radiol 10:83–92PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22:746–757PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hamoen EH, de Rooij M, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM (2014) Use of the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) for prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 67:1112–1121PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- de Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Futterer JJ, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM (2014) Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:343–351PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hegde JV, Mulkern RV, Panych LP et al (2013) Multiparametric MRI of prostate cancer: an update on state-of-the-art techniques and their performance in detecting and localizing prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 37:1035–1054PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F et al (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 67:627–636PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Stamatakis L, Siddiqui MM, Nix JW et al (2013) Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer. Cancer 119:3359–3366PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Da Rosa MR, Milot L, Sugar L et al (2014) A prospective comparison of MRI-US fused targeted biopsy versus systemic ultrasound-guided biopsy for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in patients on active surveillance. J Magn Reson Imaging 41:220–5PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). CG175 NG (2014) Prostate cancer: diagnosis and treatment. Available via http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg175. Accessed Dec. 2014
- McNeal JE (1981) The zonal anatomy of the prostate. Prostate 2:35–49PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA (1988) Zonal distribution of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Correlation with histologic pattern and direction of spread. Am J Surg Pathol 12:897–906PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rosenkrantz AB, Taneja SS (2014) Radiologist, be aware: ten pitfalls that confound the interpretation of multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:109–120PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T et al (2012) Normal central zone of the prostate and central zone involvement by prostate cancer: clinical and MR imaging implications. Radiology 262:894–902PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mai KT, Belanger EC, Al-Maghrabi HM, Robertson S, Wang D, Margnean C (2008) Primary prostatic central zone adenocarcinoma. Pathol Res Pract 204:251–258PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cohen RJ, Shannon BA, Phillips M, Moorin RE, Wheeler TM, Garrett KL (2008) Central zone carcinoma of the prostate gland: a distinct tumor type with poor prognostic features. J Urol 179:1762–1767, discussion 1767 PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lemaitre L, Puech P, Poncelet E et al (2009) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of anterior prostate cancer: morphometric assessment and correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. Eur Radiol 19:470–480PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bonekamp D, Jacobs MA, El-Khouli R, Stoianovici D, Macura KJ (2011) Advancements in MR imaging of the prostate: from diagnosis to interventions. Radiographics 31:677–703PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Akin O, Sala E, Moskowitz CS et al (2006) Transition zone prostate cancers: features, detection, localization, and staging at endorectal MR imaging. Radiology 239:784–792PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lawrentschuk N, Haider MA, Daljeet N et al (2010) ‘Prostatic evasive anterior tumours’: the role of magnetic resonance imaging. BJU Int 105:1231–1236PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hoeks CM, Hambrock T, Yakar D et al (2013) Transition zone prostate cancer: detection and localization with 3-T multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology 266:207–217PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Yoshizako T, Wada A, Hayashi T et al (2008) Usefulness of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate transition-zone cancer. Acta Radiol 49:1207–1213PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Oto A, Kayhan A, Jiang Y et al (2010) Prostate cancer: differentiation of central gland cancer from benign prostatic hyperplasia by using diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 257:715–723PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Engelbrecht MR, Huisman HJ, Laheij RJ et al (2003) Discrimination of prostate cancer from normal peripheral zone and central gland tissue by using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 229:248–254PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Turnbull LW, Buckley DL, Turnbull LS, Liney GP, Knowles AJ (1999) Differentiation of prostatic carcinoma and benign prostatic hyperplasia: correlation between dynamic Gd-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging and histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging 9:311–316PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T et al (2011) Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 261:46–66PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Schieda N, Coffey N, Gulavita P, Al-Dandan O, Shabana W, Flood TA (2014) Prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma: an aggressive tumour variant unrecognized on T2 weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Eur Radiol 24:1349–56PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Claus FG, Hricak H, Hattery RR (2004) Pretreatment evaluation of prostate cancer: role of MR imaging and 1H MR spectroscopy. Radiographics 24(Suppl 1):S167–180PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Barrett T, Vargas HA, Akin O, Goldman DA, Hricak H (2012) Value of the hemorrhage exclusion sign on T1-weighted prostate MR images for the detection of prostate cancer. Radiology 263:751–757PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rosenkrantz AB, Kopec M, Kong X et al (2010) Prostate cancer vs. post-biopsy hemorrhage: diagnosis with T2- and diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 31:1387–1394PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Chesnais AL, Niaf E, Bratan F et al (2013) Differentiation of transitional zone prostate cancer from benign hyperplasia nodules: evaluation of discriminant criteria at multiparametric MRI. Clin Radiol 68:e323–330PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bouye S, Potiron E, Puech P, Leroy X, Lemaitre L, Villers A (2009) Transition zone and anterior stromal prostate cancers: zone of origin and intraprostatic patterns of spread at histopathology. Prostate 69:105–113PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Esen M, Onur MR, Akpolat N, Orhan I, Kocakoc E (2013) Utility of ADC measurement on diffusion-weighted MRI in differentiation of prostate cancer, normal prostate and prostatitis. Quant Imaging Med Surg 3:210–216PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Nagel KN, Schouten MG, Hambrock T et al (2013) Differentiation of prostatitis and prostate cancer by using diffusion-weighted MR imaging and MR-guided biopsy at 3 T. Radiology 267:164–172PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bour L, Schull A, Delongchamps NB et al (2013) Multiparametric MRI features of granulomatous prostatitis and tubercular prostate abscess. Diagn Interv Imaging 94:84–90PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, Eberhardt SC et al (2004) Chronic prostatitis: MR imaging and 1H MR spectroscopic imaging findings–initial observations. Radiology 231:717–724PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Franiel T, Ludemann L, Rudolph B et al (2008) Evaluation of normal prostate tissue, chronic prostatitis, and prostate cancer by quantitative perfusion analysis using a dynamic contrast-enhanced inversion-prepared dual-contrast gradient echo sequence. Investig Radiol 43:481–487View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Watanabe Y, Nagayama M, Araki T et al (2013) Targeted biopsy based on ADC map in the detection and localization of prostate cancer: a feasibility study. J Magn Reson Imaging 37:1168–1177PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Humphrey PA (2012) Histological variants of prostatic carcinoma and their significance. Histopathology 60:59–74PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Meeks JJ, Zhao LC, Cashy J, Kundu S (2012) Incidence and outcomes of ductal carcinoma of the prostate in the USA: analysis of data from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program. BJU Int 109:831–834PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Seipel AH, Wiklund F, Wiklund NP, Egevad L (2013) Histopathological features of ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate in 1,051 radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch 462:429–436PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Amin A, Epstein JI (2011) Pathologic stage of prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma at radical prostatectomy: effect of percentage of the ductal component and associated grade of acinar adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 35:615–619PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Montironi R, Hammond EH, Lin DW et al (2014) Consensus statement with recommendations on active surveillance inclusion criteria and definition of progression in men with localized prostate cancer: the critical role of the pathologist. Virchows Arch 465:623–628PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Amin MB, Lin DW, Gore JL et al (2014) The critical role of the pathologist in determining eligibility for active surveillance as a management option in patients with prostate cancer: consensus statement with recommendations supported by the College of American Pathologists, International Society of Urological Pathology, Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology, the New Zealand Society of Pathologists, and the Prostate Cancer Foundation. Arch Pathol Lab Med 138:1387–1405PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Coffey N, Schieda N, Cron G, Gulavita P, Mai KT, Flood TA (2014) Multi-parametric (mp) MRI of prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging. doi:10.1002/jmri.24694 PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Weinreb JC, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Katarzyna MJ, Margolis D, Schnall MD, Tempany CM, Thoeny HC, Verma S, Barentsz JO. Prostate imaging and data repording system (PI-RADS) version 2.0. Issued jointly by: American College of Radiology (ACR) and European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR). Website. http://acr.org/~/media/ACR/Documents/PDF/QualitySafety/Resources/PIRADS/PIRADS%20V2.pdf. Accessed April 2015
- Froehlich JM, Metens T, Chilla B, Hauser N, Klarhoefer M, Kubik-Huch RA (2012) Should less motion sensitive T2-weighted BLADE TSE replace cartesian TSE for female pelvic MRI? Insights Imaging 3:611–618Google Scholar
- Lane BF, Vandermeer FQ, Oz RC, Irwin EW, McMillan AB, Wong-You-Cheong JJ (2011) Comparison of sagittal T2-weighted BLADE and fast spin-echo MRI of the female pelvis for motion artifact and lesion detection. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:W307–313PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rosenkrantz AB, Bennett GL, Doshi A, Deng FM, Babb JS, Taneja SS (2014) T2-weighted imaging of the prostate: impact of the BLADE technique on image quality and tumor assessment. Abdom Imaging 40:552–9View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Westphalen AC, Rosenkrantz AB (2014) Prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS): reflections on early experience with a standardized interpretation scheme for multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:121–123PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Metens T, Miranda D, Absil J, Matos C (2012) What is the optimal b value in diffusion-weighted MR imaging to depict prostate cancer at 3 T? Eur Radiol 22:703–709PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wang X, Qian Y, Liu B et al (2014) High-b-value diffusion-weighted MRI for the detection of prostate cancer at 3 T. Clin Radiol 69:1165–1170PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Haider MA, van der Kwast TH, Tanguay J et al (2007) Combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI for localization of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:323–328PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rosenkrantz AB, Triolo MJ, Melamed J, Rusinek H, Taneja SS, Deng FM (2015) Whole-lesion apparent diffusion coefficient metrics as a marker of percentage Gleason 4 component within Gleason 7 prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy. J Magn Reson Imaging 41:708–714PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lawrence EM, Gallagher FA, Barrett T et al (2014) Preoperative 3 T diffusion-weighted MRI for the qualitative and quantitative assessment of extracapsular extension in patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:W280–286PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Donati OF, Mazaheri Y, Afaq A et al (2014) Prostate cancer aggressiveness: assessment with whole-lesion histogram analysis of the apparent diffusion coefficient. Radiology 271:143–152PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Vos EK, Litjens GJ, Kobus T et al (2013) Assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T. Eur Urol 64:448–455PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Isebaert S, De Keyzer F, Haustermans K et al (2012) Evaluation of semi-quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI parameters for prostate cancer in correlation to whole-mount histopathology. Eur J Radiol 81:e217–222PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Langer DL, van der Kwast TH, Evans AJ et al (2010) Prostate tissue composition and MR measurements: investigating the relationships between ADC, T2, K(trans), v(e), and corresponding histologic features. Radiology 255:485–494PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Quon JKA, Jain R, Schieda N (2015) Assessing the utilization of functional imaging in multi-parametric (mp) prostate MRI in routine clinical practice. Clin Radiol 70:373–378PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC et al (2014) A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial. Eur Urol 66:343–351PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Puech P, Rouviere O, Renard-Penna R et al (2013) Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy–prospective multicenter study. Radiology 268:461–469PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Delongchamps NB, Peyromaure M, Schull A et al (2013) Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer detection: comparison of random and targeted biopsies. J Urol 189:493–499PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cool DW, Zhang X, Romagnoli C, Izawa JI, Romano WM, Fenster A (2015) Evaluation of MRI-TRUS fusion versus cognitive registration accuracy for MRI-targeted, TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:83–91PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar