Download PDF
TumorDiagnostik & Therapie 2004; 25(5): 226-235
DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-813647
Thieme Onkologie aktuell

© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

Schnittbilddiagnostik von Tumoren der Niere und der Prostata: CT und MRT

Cross-section Diagnosis of Tumors of the Kidney and Prostate Gland: CT and MRIM. Taupitz1 , D. Beyersdorff1 , P. Rogalla1
  • 1Institut für Radiologie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Charité Mitte
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
05 November 2004 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung:

Computertomographie (CT) und Magnetresonanztomographie (MRT) haben in den letzten 10 Jahren gerade im Hinblick auf die Diagnostik renaler Raumforderungen bedeutende technische Fortschritte erfahren. Neben der Nativuntersuchung kann in Verbindung mit intravenöser Kontrastierung durch beide Verfahren das gesamte Abdomen sowohl während der arteriellen als auch der parenchymatösen Perfusionsphase mit hoher Detailauflösung in dreidimensionalen Datensätzen abgebildet werden. Multiplanare Rekonstruktionen dieser 3D-Datensätze führen zu Darstellungen in beliebigen Orientierungen. Eine Maximum-Intensitätsprojektion ermöglicht die Anfertigung von CT- bzw. MR-Angiographien. Beide Verfahren bieten somit in der Diagnostik von Nierentumoren die Möglichkeit, in einem Untersuchungsgang neben der detaillierten Parenchymdarstellung auch die arteriellen und venösen Gefäße abzubilden, was zu einer effizienten präoperativen Diagnostik führt. In der MR-tomographischen Diagnostik des Prostatakarzinom ist die erreichbare Treffsicherheit sowohl von der eingesetzten Spulentechnik als auch von den zur Verfügung stehenden klinischen Informationen sowie der Erfahrung des Untersuchers abhängig. Für das präoperative Staging werden für die MR-Diagnostik des Prostatakarzinom Treffsicherheiten zwischen 51 und 97 % angegeben.

Abstract

Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) underwent significant technical advances in the past ten years, especially in the diagnostic evaluation of renal tumors. Either modality can perform unenhanced and contrast enhanced imaging with high resolution display of three-dimensional data sets of the entire abdomen including the arterial and the parenchymatous perfusion phase after injection of contrast medium. Multiplanar reconstructions of these three-dimensional data allow the display in any chosen orientation. The maximum intensity projection can create CT and MR angiograms. For the diagnosis of renal tumors, both modalities offer the possibility of a detailed visualization of both the parenchyma and the arterial and venous vessels, leading to an efficient preoperative work-up. For the MRI diagnosis of the prostate cancer, the achievable accuracy depends on the applied coil technique and on the available clinical information as well as on the experience of the examiner. For the preoperative MRI staging of prostate cancer, the accuracy has been stated to be between 51 % and 97 %.

Schlüsselwörter

Nierentumoren - Prostatakarzinom - Computertomographie - Magnetresonanztomographie

Key words

Kidney tumors - prostate cancer - computed tomography - magnetic resonance imaging

Literatur

  • 1 Beyersdorff D, Darsow U, Stephan C, Schnorr D, Loening S, Taupitz M. MRI of prostate cancer using three different coil systems: image quality, tumor detection, and staging.  Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr. 2003;  175 799-805
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Beyersdorff D, Taupitz M, Winkelmann B, Fischer T, Lenk S, Loening S A, Hamm B. Patients with a history of elevated prostate-specific antigen levels and negative transrectal US-guided quadrant or sextant biopsy results: value of MR imaging.  Radiology. 2002;  224 701-706
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Brown G, Macvicar D A, Ayton V, Husband J E. The role of intravenous contrast enhancement in magnetic resonance imaging of prostatic carcinoma.  Clin-Radiol. 1995;  50 601-606 issn 0009 - 9260
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Catalano C, Fraioli F, Laghi A, Napoli A, Pediconi F, Danti M, Nardis P, Passariello R. High-resolution multidetector CT in the preoperative evaluation of patients with renal cell carcinoma.  Am J Roentgenol. 2003;  180 1271-1277
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Catalona W J, Smith D S, Ratliff T L, Dodds K M, Coplen D E, Yuan J J, Petros J A, Andriole G L. Measurement of prostate-specific antigen in serum as a screening test for prostate cancer.  N Engl J Med. 1991;  324 1156-1161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Colombo T, Schips L, Augustin H, Gruber H, Hebel P, Petritsch P H, Hubmer G. Value of transrectal ultrasound in preoperative staging of prostate cancer.  Minerva Urol Nefrol. 1999;  51 1-4
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ellis W J, Brawer M K. Repeat prostate needle biopsy: who needs it?.  J Urol. 1995;  153 1496-1498
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Engelbrecht M R, Huisman H J, Laheij R J, Jager G J, Leenders G J van, Hulsbergen-Van De Kaa C A, de la Rosette J J, Blickman J G, Barentsz J O, Engelbrecht M, Witjes J A, de la Rosette J, Sanden B P van Der, Heerschap A. Discrimination of prostate cancer from normal peripheral zone and central gland tissue by using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging fast dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging of urinary bladder and prostate cancer.  Radiology. 2003;  229 248-254
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ergen F B, Hussain H K, Caoili E M, Korobkin M, Carlos R C, Weadock W J, Johnson T D, Shah R, Hayasaka S, Francis I R. MRI for preoperative staging of renal cell carcinoma using the 1997 TNM classification: comparison with surgical and pathologic staging.  Am J Roentgenol. 2004;  182 217-225
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Fielding J R, Aliabadi N, Renshaw A A, Silverman S G. Staging of 119 patients with renal cell carcinoma: the yield and cost-effectiveness of pelvic CT.  Am J Roentgenol. 1999;  172 23-25
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Glockner J F. Three-dimensional gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography: applications for abdominal imaging.  Radiographics. 2001;  21 357-370
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hallscheidt P, Hansmann J, Schenk J P, Radeleff B A, Kauffmann G W, Riedasch G. Organerhaltende Chirurgie des Nierenzellkarzinoms - Operationstechniken und Befunde in der radiologischen Nachsorge.  Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr. 2002;  174 409-415
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Halpern E J, Frauscher F, Rosenberg M, Gomella L G. Directed biopsy during contrast-enhanced sonography of the prostate.  Am J Roentgenol. 2002;  178 915-919
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Harisinghani M G, Barentsz J, Hahn P F, Deserno W M, Tabatabaei S, Kaa C H van de, de la Rosette J, Weissleder R. Noninvasive detection of clinically occult lymph-node metastases in prostate cancer.  N Engl J Med. 2003;  348 2491-2499
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hricak H, White S, Vigneron D, Kurhanewicz J, Kosco A, Levin D, Weiss J, Narayan P, Carroll P R. Carcinoma of the prostate gland: MR imaging with pelvic phased-array coils versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils.  Radiology. 1994;  193 703-709
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Huch Böni R A, Boner J A, Lutolf U M, Trinkler F, Pestalozzi D M, Krestin G P. Contrast-enhanced endorectal coil MRI in local staging of prostate carcinoma.  J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1995;  19 232-237
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ikonen S, Kivisaari L, Tervahartiala P, Vehmas T, Taari K, Rannikko S. Prostatic MR imaging. Accuracy in differentiating cancer from other prostatic disorders.  Acta Radiol. 2001;  42 348-354
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Keetch D W, Catalona W J, Smith D S. Serial prostatic biopsies in men with persistently elevated serum prostate specific antigen values.  J Urol. 1994;  151 1571-1574
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron D B, Hricak H, Narayan P, Carroll P, Nelson S J. Three-dimensional H-1 MR spectroscopic imaging of the in situ human prostate with high (0.24 - 0.7-cm3) spatial resolution.  Radiology. 1996;  198 795-805
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Nicolas V, Beese M, Keulers A, Bressel M, Kastendieck H, Huland H. MR tomography in prostatic carcinoma: comparison of conventional and endorectal MRT.  Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr. 1994;  161 319-326
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Outwater E K, Petersen R O, Siegelman E S, Gomella L G, Chernesky C E, Mitchell D G. Prostate carcinoma: assessment of diagnostic criteria for capsular penetration on endorectal coil MR images.  Radiology. 1994;  193 333-339
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Pegios W, Bentas W, Wittmann L, Mack M G, Zangos S, Sollner O, Binder J, Fellbaum C, Jonas D, Vogl T J. MRI staging of prostate cancer with the combined endorectal body phased-array coil and histologic correlation.  Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr. 2003;  175 1660-1666
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Perrotti M, Han K R, Epstein R E, Kennedy E C, Rabbani F, Badani K, Pantuck A J, Weiss R E, Cummings K B. Prospective evaluation of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging to detect tumor foci in men with prior negative prostastic biopsy: a pilot study.  J Urol. 1999;  162 1314-1317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Pickhardt P J, Lonergan G J, Davis C J, Kashitani N, Wagner B J. From the archives of the AFIP. Infiltrative renal lesions: radiologic-pathologic correlation.  Radiographics. 2000;  20 215-243
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Quinn S F, Franzini D A, Demlow T A, Rosencrantz D R, Kim J, Hanna R M, Szumowski J. MR imaging of prostate cancer with an endorectal surface coil technique: correlation with whole-mount specimens.  Radiology. 1994;  190 323-327
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Sanroma Ortueta I, Garrido Rivas M C, Garmendia Larrea J C, Lopez Garcia J A, Arocena Lanz F. Xanthogranulomatous pyelonephritis: apropos of 13 cases.  Actas Urol Esp. 1989;  13 96-98
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Sawai Y, Kinouchi T, Mano M, Meguro N, Maeda O, Kuroda M, Usami M. Ipsilateral adrenal involvement from renal cell carcinoma: retrospective study of the predictive value of computed tomography.  Urology. 2002;  59 28-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Scheidler J, Hricak H, Vigneron D B, Yu K K, Sokolov D L, Huang L R, Zaloudek C J, Nelson S J, Carroll P R, Kurhanewicz J. Prostate cancer: localization with three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging-clinicopathologic study.  Radiology. 1999;  213 473-480
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Studer U E, Scherz S, Scheidegger J, Kraft R, Sonntag R, Ackermann D, Zingg E J. Enlargement of regional lymph nodes in renal cell carcinoma is often not due to metastases.  J Urol. 1990;  144 243-245
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Taupitz M, Wagner S, Hamm B. Contrast media for magnetic resonance tomographic lymph node diagnosis (MR lymphography).  Radiologe. 1996;  36 134-140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Tempany C M, Rahmouni A D, Epstein J I, Walsh P C, Zerhouni E A. Invasion of the neurovascular bundle by prostate cancer: evaluation with MR imaging.  Radiology. 1991;  181 107-112
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Yaycioglu O, Rutman M P, Balasubramaniam M, Peters K M, Gonzalez J A. Clinical and pathologic tumor size in renal cell carcinoma; difference, correlation, and analysis of the influencing factors.  Urology. 2002;  60 33-38
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Yu K K, Hricak H, Alagappan R, Chernoff D M, Bacchetti P, Zaloudek C J. Detection of extracapsular extension of prostate carcinoma with endorectal and phased-array coil MR imaging: multivariate feature analysis.  Radiology. 1997;  202 697-702
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Yuh B I, Cohan R H. Different phases of renal enhancement: role in detecting and characterizing renal masses during helical CT.  Am J Roentgenol. 1999;  173 747-755
    PubMedGoogle Scholar

Dr. med. Matthias Taupitz

Institut für Radiologie · Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · Campus Charité Mitte

Schumannstraße 20/21

10117 Berlin

Phone: 030/450 527 032 oder 450 527082

Fax: 030/450 527 922

Email: matthias.taupitz@charite.de

      >