Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy of the male gender. The role of magnetic resonance imaging has evolved very rapidly over the years to be currently recognized as a fundamental tool in the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of prostate cancer.
SiegelRMaJZouZJemalACancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014; 64(1): 9–29 Erratum in: CACancer J Clin. 2014 Sep-Oct;64.
2.
SchröderFHHugossonJRoobolMJet al;ERSPC Investigators. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(13): 1320–1328.
3.
CiattoSScreening for prostate cancer by PSA determination: a time for caution. Int J Biol Markers. 2000; 15(4): 285–287.
4.
StephanCStroebelGHeinauM. The ratio of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to prostate volume (PSA density) as a parameter to improve the detection of prostate carcinoma in PSA values in the range of <4 ng/mL. Cancer. 2005; 104(5): 993–1003.
5.
WalshALConsidineSWThomasAZLynchTHManeckshaRPDigital rectal examination in primary care is important for early detection of prostate cancer: a retrospective cohort analysis study. Br J Gen Pract. 2014; 64(629): e783–e787.
6.
FüttererJJVermaSHambrockTYakarDBarentszJOHigh-risk prostate cancer: value of multi-modality 3T MRI-guided biopsies after previous negative biopsies. Abdom Imaging. 2012; 37(5): 892–896.
7.
LeeFTorp-PedersenSTSidersDBLittrupPJMcLearyRDTransrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis and staging of prostatic carcinoma. Radiology. 1989; 170(3 Pt 1): 609–615.
8.
HeidenreichABastianPJBellmuntJet al;European Association of Urology. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol. 2014; 65(1): 124–137.
9.
PanebiancoVSciarraAMarcantonioA. Conventional imaging and multiparametric magnetic resonance (MRI, MRS, DWI, MRP) in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012; 56(4): 331–342.
10.
LiCChenMLiS. Diffusion tensor imaging of prostate at 3.0 Tesla. Acta Radiol. 2011; 52(7): 813–817.
11.
BittencourtLKHausmannDSabaneeffNGasparettoELBarentszJOMultiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: current concepts. Radiol Bras. 2014; 47(5): 292–300.
12.
KimCKParkBKKimBDiffusion-weighted MRI at 3T for the evaluation of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010; 194(6): 1461–1469.
13.
SosnaJPedrosaIDewolfWCMahallatiHLenkinskiRERofskyNMMR imaging of the prostate at 3 Tesla: comparison of an external phased-array coil to imaging with an endorectal coil at 1.5 Tesla. Acad Radiol. 2004; 11(8): 857–862.
14.
BeyersdorffDTaymoorianKKnöselT. MRI of prostate cancer at 1.5 and 3.0 T: comparison of image quality in tumor detection and staging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005; 185(5): 1214–1220.
15.
FüttererJJHeijminkSWScheenenTW. Prostate cancer: local staging at 3-T endorectal MR imaging—early experience. Radiology. 2006; 238(1): 184–191.
16.
JohnstonRWongLMWarrenAShahNNealDThe role of 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging in staging prostate cancer. ANZ J Surg. 2013; 83(4): 234–238.
17.
SankineniSOsmanMChoykePLFunctional MRI in prostate cancer detection. Biomed Res Int. 2014; 2014:590638.
18.
LingDLeeJKHeikenJPBalfeDMGlazerHSMcClennanBLProstatic carcinoma and benign prostatic hyperplasia: inability of MR imaging to distinguish between the two diseases. Radiology. 1986; 158(1): 103–107.
19.
GrossfeldGDCoakleyFVBenign prostatic hyperplasia: clinical overview and value of diagnostic imaging. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000; 38(1): 31–47.
20.
HricakHThe prostate gland. In: Hricak H, Carrington B, editors. MRI of the pelvis. London: Martin Dunitz; 1991:249-311.
21.
AkinOSalaEMoskowitzCS. Transition zone prostate cancers: features, detection, localization, and staging at endorectal MR imaging. Radiology. 2006; 239(3): 784–792.
BarentszJORichenbergJClementsRet al;European Society of Urogenital Radiology. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012; 22(4): 746–757.
26.
HambrockTSomfordDMHuismanHJ. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology. 2011; 259(2): 453–461.
27.
GirouinNege-LechevallierFMTonina SenesA. ‘Prostate dynamic contrast-enhanced mri with simple visual diagnostic criteria: is it reasonable?’ Eur Radiol. 2007; 176: 1498–1509.
28.
PadhaniARGapinskiCJMacvicarDA. Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation with morphology and tumour stage, histological grade and PSA. Clin Radiol. 2000; 55(2): 99–109.
29.
ThompsonJLawrentschukNFrydenbergMThompsonLStrickerPUSANZ. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2013; 112(Suppl 2): 6–20.
30.
RosenkrantzABTanejaSSRadiologist, be aware: ten pitfalls that confound the interpretation of multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014; 202(1): 109–20.
31.
PanebiancoVBarchettiFMusioDDe FeliceFProiettiCIndinoELMegnaVSchillaciOCatalanoCTomboliniVAdvanced imaging for the early diagnosisof local recurrence prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Biomed Res Int. 2014; 2014:827265.
32.
DurmusTBaurAHammBMultiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of prostate cancer. Aktuelle Urol. 2014; 45(2): 119–126.
33.
RylanderSThörnqvistSHaackSPedersenEMMurenLPIntensity profile based measurement of prostate gold markers influence on 1.5 and 3T diffusion-weighted MR images. Acta Oncol. 2011; 50(6): 866–872.
34.
KiechleJEPahwaSGulaniVKanaanGSedelaarJPPonskyLEMagnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: What the urologist needs to know. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2015; 67(3): 201–10.
35.
FascelliMGeorgeAKFryeTTurkbeyBChoykePLPintoPAThe role of MRI in active surveillance for prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep. 2015; 16(6): 42.
