Magnetic Resonance Imaging is frequently used to diagnose and manage prostate cancer. It is also increasingly used as a means to map and guide delivery of new, highly focused therapies that use freezing (cryotherapy), ultrasound (HIFU) and heat (laser ablation) to destroy cancerous tissue in the prostate gland while sparing healthy tissue.
Oncologic efficacy of focal therapies in prostate cancer depends heavily on accurate tumor size estimation. Researchers conducted a study to evaluate the agreement between radiologic tumor size and pathological tumor size, and identify predictors of pathological tumor size.
A study led by researchers at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center has found that magnetic resonance imaging, or Magnetic Resonance Imaging, frequently underestimates the size of prostate tumors, potentially leading to undertreatment.The study was published online in the Journal of Urology.
The study authors found that such underestimation occurs most often when the MRI-measured tumor size is small and the PI-RADS score, which is used to classify lesions in prostate MRI analysis, is low.
For prostate tumor treatments to be successful, both the Magnetic Resonance Imaging size measurement and PI-RADS score must be accurate because they allow physicians to determine precisely where tumors end and where the normal, healthy tissue surrounding them begins.
Researchers compared MRI-measured tumor size with actual tumor size after prostate removal in 441 men treated for prostate cancer.
Improving the ability to better predict ablation margins will allow for more successful treatments for men with prostate cancer and can help reduce the morbidity of prostate cancer treatment.
Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging frequently underestimates pathological tumor size and the degree of underestimation increases with smaller radiologic tumor size and lower PI-RADSv2 scores. Therefore, a larger ablation margin may be required for smaller tumors and lesions with lower PI-RADSv2 scores. These variables must be considered when estimating treatment margins in focal therapy.
For further reference log on to:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001389