Synopsis
Diagnostic MRI is
increasingly adopted in the care and management of patients with suspected or
known localized prostate cancer. We will review both MRI-informed (i.e.
offline) and MRI-guided (i.e. online) strategies to needle guidance for
diagnosis and therapy. The current
state-of-the-art in actuated and robotic interventional devices will be
discussed. Finally, the importance of image-guided biopsies in oncology in general will be emphasized.Diagnostic MRI is increasingly adopted in
the care and management of patients with suspected or known localized prostate
cancer. MRI is considered
state-of-the-art for local tumor staging and visualization. A diagnostic acquisition protocol that
includes high-resolution T2-weighted FSE and diffusion imaging (DWI) with or
without dynamic imaging during IV contrast injection, can accurately identify
sub-regions of gross tumor burden (Figure 1) and the presence of gross
extracapsular extension or seminal vesicle invasion (stage T3). (Weinreb et
al.) It stems that its integration in
diagnostic and therapeutic interventions is well justified in the context of
tumor-targeting.
The first and most established application
consists of an MRI-informed (i.e. offline) and TRUS-guided strategy for needle
guidance. (Churukanti et la.) Data
regarding the benefit of this approach for improving diagnostic biopsy yield
are mounting. However, issues of
registration error remain. We and others
have pursued MRI-only workflows to needle guidance in order to address this
problem. (Ménard et al.) We will review
the current state-of-the-art in actuated and robotic devices that have been
developed in order to enable such a workflow.
Such platforms enable highly resolved imaging-pathology correlation
activities, and the importance of such platforms in the realm of cancer
research will be emphasized. Cancer is a highly heterogeneous disease, mandating exquisitve accuracy and precision for such activities. Interventional MRI is poised to address this challenge.
Finally, focal therapeutic modalities
including brachytherapy, laser therapy, HIFU, and cryotherapy have been used
under MRI-guidance in small single- institution series. The potential role of these approaches will
be discussed in the context of designing an interventional trajectory with high
potential for clinical relevance and impact.
Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
1.
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke
PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, Margolis D, Schnall MD, Shtern F, Tempany
CM, Thoeny HC, Verma S. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System:
2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):16-40.
2. Churukanti G,
Siddiqui MM. Prostate cancer: MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy versus 12-core systematic
biopsy. Nat Rev Urol. 2015 Jul;12(7):369-71.
3.
Ménard C, Iupati D, Publicover J, Lee J, Abed J, O'Leary G, Simeonov A,
Foltz WD, Milosevic M, Catton C, Morton G, Bristow R, Bayley A, Atenafu EG,
Evans AJ, Jaffray DA, Chung P, Brock KK, Haider MA. MR-guided prostate biopsy
for planning of focal salvage after radiation therapy. Radiology. 2015
Jan;274(1):181-91.