I'm interested in conversations about and I want to talk about
Know exactly what you want?
Show search

Notification

Error

Multiparametric MRI

User
Posted 15 Sep 2023 at 08:53

In my intense research over the last 2 or 3 weeks into PCa, (only diagnosed last month and yet to have my initial post “breaking the news chat” with any of the consultants) it seems to me that the quality of the initial MRI scan is fundamental to accurate diagnosis and hence treatment recommendations.  The internet is wonderful for its store of information and I am well aware of the pitfalls of taking everything at face value.  However, the terms “multiparametric MRI” and the use of “contrast” come up frequently.  
Does anyone know if multiparametric MRIs are standard throughout England and can anyone explain in layman’s terms the relationship with contrast?  Can I assume that the quality of my MRI coupled with my biopsy results  will be sufficient for a Focal Therapy consultant to determine whether I am a suitable patient or would additional mprMRI be necessary?  
(A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing so please correct any miss-assumptions I may have made in my early research.)

Simon

User
Posted 15 Sep 2023 at 12:18

A standard MRI you would have for most other conditions is a bi-parametric MRI, which very crudely put, gives images of water distribution, and images of fat distribution. Clever imaging software can combine these to give images showing different tissue types based on the water and fat densities and ratios. These were not very good for identifying prostate cancer, which is notoriously difficult to indentify from normal prostate tissue.

Then came multi-parametric MRI scans, which add a third set of images. These use a contrast dye which shows up well on MRI scans, containing gadolinium. Towards the end of your MRI scan, the contrast is injected quickly, and forms a slug of die in your blood stream. This hits the prostate, and shows up well the blood flow in it. Tumours grow their own blood supply, which is not the same structure as the original blood supply in the prostate, and they have a different flushing rate - rate the blood passes through. This can be seen by the MRI scanner, and is an extra way to identify tissue which is different in the prostate, i.e lesions, although not necessarily tumours. Sometime around 2016 maybe (not sure exactly when), hospitals diagnosing prostate cancer were supposed to switch to mpMRI scans. I think this technique was first used for brain tumour scans, some of which are similarly difficult to identify. By 2018 when I was diagnosed, about 3/4trs of hospitals in England were doing mpMRI scans for prostates.

However, in the US, concerns were growing over long term side effects of gadolinium dyes. While they only impacted a very small proportion of patients, they were very serious when they did. This caused a move away from their use in the litigious US, and instead advances in image processing software improved what could be derived from bi-parametric MRI scans, particularly when done on high resolution 3T scanners (which were not the norm when mpMRI scans were originally introduced). Apparently, the UK never used the gadolinium brands which were most implicated long term side effects, but there was still concern about the possibility, and there are some patients who get short term allergic reactions, or who can't have the dye because their kidney function isn't good enough to filter it out of the body quickly.

This has caused a move back to bi-parametric MRI scans in some centres in the UK with more advanced imaging, although many places still use mpMRI.

Many scans done for prostate cancer diagnosis are not good enough for planning focal therapy, which obviously does require very accurate identification of all the cancer in the prostate. Sometimes focal therapy centres can use your diagnostic imaging, but other times they'll want you to get better quality scans.

Edited by member 15 Sep 2023 at 12:23  | Reason: Not specified

User
Posted 15 Sep 2023 at 12:59

Thank you Andy for your very prompt but extremely comprehensive reply to my questions.  

As a Gleason 3+4 T2 N0 but PSA 9.45 I am hoping that I can go down a Focal Therapy route instead of AS or RP, RT or Brachytherapy which were what the MDT decided I might have. However I need to be confident that the MRI scan was accurate and that the skill of the radiologist was also of the necessary standard, both issues constantly being raised in the Blogs from the Focal Therapy Clinic.

Having followed the excellent comments both for and against Focal Therapy on this forum, for me at age 71 I am content that there might be recurrence or that minor lesions might be deliberately ignored and that I might have to undergo Focal Therapy more than once.  The quality of life issues are paramount in my mind and if I can attempt to treat early (if I am suitable) the current lesions with minimal side effects rather than leaving them until they decide whether they want to grow, then for me it seems a sound decision.

If either I am not suitable, or if which ever Focal Therapy treatment I end up having is unsuccessful, then I would hope that brachytherapy might be the next option (LDR or HDR) or whatever medical science might offer in 5-8 years. 

Then the choice of which Focal Therapy might be suited to my little unwelcome prostate guest is the next question, but I do not know yet whether this little guest is in the anterior or posterior region and hence whether I would be suitable for HIFU or Crytherapy (or even Nanoknife).   Some of these issues will I hope be answered when I see the surgeon and oncologist in the next 10 days (and hopefully gain a recommendation though the NHS for a Focal Therapy consultation) but I think it is well to present as an “intelligent customer” and you have helped already with your response.  I would welcome further comment on my possible planned route!  


Thank you.

Simon

 
Forum Jump  
©2024 Prostate Cancer UK