Value of preoperative MRI for prostate cancer staging and continence outcomes prior to prostatectomy: A review of the literature

Table 1 Clinical usefulness characteristics of magnetic resonance imaging for determining extracapsular extension

Ref.	Characteristic
Schiebler et al[14]	Asymmetry of the neurovascular bundle
	Obliteration of the rectoprostatic angle
Outwater et al[15]	A bulge in the prostatic contour
	Gross extracapsular tumor extension into the periprostatic fat

Table 2 Accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of predicting extracapsular extension by magnetic resonance imaging

Ref.	Imaging technology	Tesla	n	Accuracy	Sensitivity	Specificity	Comment
Bloch et al[17]	T2w imaging combined with dynamic contrast enhancement	1.5	32	95%	86%	96%	Determination of ECE increased by 25% with addition of DCE
Chandra et al[30]	T2w imaging with ER-MRI	1.5	38	76	69	82
Fütterer et al[18]	T2w imaging with pelvic phased array and T2w imaging with endorectal coil	1.5	81	76-83 ER-PPA 61-63 PPA	47-63 ER-PPA 43-60 PPA	96 ER-PPA 70-72 PPA	Single reader with conscious readers bc/de?
Park et al[31]	3.0 T2w pelvic phase array vs er MRI	3.0 vs 1.5	108 (54 in each group)	72 3T vs 70 1.5T	1.5-T 71% 3.0-T 81%	1.5-T 73% 3.0-T 67%	The 3.0-T MRI had a lower incidence of MR artifacts than the 1.5-T MRI (P < 0.05). However, overall imaging quality at both 3.0 and 1.5 T had no significant difference
Zhang et al[32]	MRI with endorectal and pelvic multicoil array	1.5	110	91	55	99
Tan et al[33]	T2w- with ERC	1.5	32	59	14	94
Nepple et al[20]	ER-MRI	1.5	94	70	14	88
Bloch et al[34]	T2w imaging with fast spin echo and DCE	3.0	108	86 (80%-91%)	75 (64%-83%)	92 (88%-95%)	NPV/PPV:79/91 Stratified by reader experience
Latcham-setty et al[16]	ER-MRI		80	53-73	31-64	71-78	First 40 and second 40. Concluded that experience increases accuracy
Beyer- sdorff et al[35]	T2w ER-MRI vs T2w imaging with torso-array	1.5 vs 3.0	22	73% (both)	1.5T; Extended continugity with capsule-100; Smooth bulging-80; Irregular bulging-80; Direct periprostatic infiltration-20; Asymmetry of NVB-20; Displacement of rectoprostatic angle-0 3-T; Extended continugity with capsule-100; Smooth bulging-60; Irregular bulging-40; Direct periprostatic infiltration-20; Asymmetry of NVB-40; Displacement of rectoprostatic angle-20	1.5T; Extended continuity with capsule-23; Smooth bulging-39; Irregular bulging-50; Direct periprostatic infiltration-83; Asymmetry of NVB-83; Displacement of rectoprostatic angle-100 3-T; Extended continuity with capsule-50; Smooth bulging-44; Irregular bulging-56; Direct periprostatic infiltration-72; Asymmetry of NVB-67; Displacement of rectoprostatic angle-89	Determined that image quality and tumor delineation was better with 1.5T2w ER-MRI
Lee et al[36]	ERC vs pelvic phased array	1.5	47 ERC vs 44 PPA	64	32 ERC vs 30 PPA	96 ERC vs 90 PPA
Hegde et al[19]	T2w multiparametric ER-MRI-T2w, T1w, DCE and DW	3.0	118	75	28	91	Presence of a T3 lesion on final pathology was associated with T3 on MRI or higher Gleason score (8-10)
Kim et al[24]	T2w pelvic array MRI vs T2w imaging ER-MRI	1.5 vs 3.0	151 63 ER-MRI vs 88 pelvic phase array	61.4 PPA 63.4 ERC	31 PPA 33 ERC	98 PPA 97 ERC
Tanaka et al[22]	T2w pelvic phase array	3.0	67	-	60	86	Specifically mention they did not use an ER-MRI
Roethke et al[21]	T2w imaging with ER-MRI	1.5	385	76	42	92	Overstaging occurred in 5.7% and under staged in 17.9% 91.8% sens/41.5%spec in predicting T2 disease dropped to 40.7%sen/92.9%spec for cT3

MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging; ER-MRI: Endorectal MRI; ECE: Extracapsular extension; DCE: Dynamic contrast enhanced; DW: Diffusion weighted; PPA: Pelvic phase array; ER-PPA: Endorectal pelvic phase array; NPV: Negative predictive value; PPV: Positive predictive value; ERC: Endorectal coil; NVB: Neurovascular bundle.

Table 3 Studies assessing magnetic resonance imaging accuracy in predicting seminal vesicle involvement

	Imaging technology	Tesla	n	Accuracy	Sensitivity	Specificity	Comment
Chandra et al[30]	T2w imaging with ER-MRI	1.5	38	76	69	82
Fütterer et al[18]	T2w imaging with pelvic phased array and T2w imaging with endorectal coil	1.5	81	90-98 ER-PPA 76-86 PPA	40-90 ER-PPA 30-50 PPA	92-99 ER-PPA 80-94 PPA
Latchamsetty et al[16]	ER-MRI		80	80-85	20-22	94-100	First 40 and second 40. Concluded that experience increases accuracy
Park et al[31]	PPA vs er MRI	3.0	108 (54 in each group)	3-T 98 vs 1.5-T 91%	1.5-T 75% 3.0-T 50%	1.5-T 92% 3.0-T 100%	The 3.0-T MRI had a lower incidence of MR artifacts than the 1.5-T MRI (P < 0.05). However, overall imaging quality at both 3.0 and 1.5 T had no significant difference
Zhang et al[32]	MRI with endorectal and pelvic multi-coil array	1.5	110	99	80	99
Lee et al[36]	1.5 T ERC vs pelvic phased array	1.5	47 ERC vs 44 PPA	89	50 ERC vs 50 PPA	93 ERC vs 98 PPA
Nepple et al[20]	T2w ER-MRI	1.5	94	93	38	99
Hegde et al[19]	T2w multiparamentric ER-MRI-T2w, T1w, DCE and DW	3.0	118	95	50	99	Presence of a T3 lesion on final pathology was associated with T3 on MRI or higher gleason score (8-10)
Kim et al[24]	T2w pelvic array MRI vs T2w imaging ER-MRI	1.5 vs 3.0	151 63 ER-MRI vs 88 pelvic phase array	81 PPA 83 ERC	43 PPA 46 ERC	92 PPA 93 ERC

MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging; ER-MRI: Endorectal MRI; DCE: Dynamic contrast enhanced; DW: Diffusion weighted; PPA: Pelvic phase array; ER-PPA: Endorectal pelvic phase array.