Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 Oct 28;3(10):241-5.
doi: 10.4329/wjr.v3.i10.241.

Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging findings of bone metastasis in patients with prostate cancer

Arda Kayhan  1 , Cheng Yang, Fatma Nur Soylu, Hatice Lakadamyalı, Ila Sethi, Gregory Karczmar, Walter Stadler, Aytekin Oto
Affiliations

Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging findings of bone metastasis in patients with prostate cancer

Arda Kayhan et al. World J Radiol. .

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) findings of bone metastasis in prostate cancer patients.

Methods: Sixteen men with a diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer to bones were examined with DCE-MRI at 1.5 Tesla. The mean contrast agent concentration vs time curves for bone metastasis and normal bone were calculated and K(trans) and ve values were estimated and compared.

Results: An early significant enhancement (wash-out: n = 6, plateau: n = 8 and persistent: n = 2) was detected in all bone metastases (n = 16). Bone metastasis from prostate cancer showed significant enhancement and high K(trans) and ve values compared to normal bone which does not enhance in the elderly population. The mean K(trans) was 0.101/min and 0.0051/min (P < 0.001), the mean ve was 0.141 and 0.0038 (P < 0.001), for bone metastases and normal bone, respectively.

Conclusion: DCE-MRI and its quantitative perfusion parameters may have a role in improving the detection of skeletal metastasis in prostate cancer patients.

Keywords: Bone; Cancer; Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging; Metastasis; Prostate.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Contrast agent concentration vs time curves in bone metastases (colored solid lines) and normal bones (black dotted lines). The curve from the only enhancing normal bone was highlighted by thick black dotted line. The enhancement of the normal bone was much less than the metastatic lesions.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Pelvic bone metastasis on the left side in a patient with prostate cancer compared with normal pelvic bones on the right side. A: Contrast agent concentration vs time curve of bone metastasis region of interest (ROI) and normal bone ROI; B: Pre-contrast image (arrow: bone metastasis, arrowhead: normal bone); C: The average subtraction image for the first minute after bolus arrival; D: The average subtraction image for the last 1 min in two representative patients (arrow:bone metastasis, arrowhead: normal bone).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59:225–249. - PubMed
    1. Manyak MJ, Javitt MC. The role of computerized tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, bone scan, and monoclonal antibody nuclear scan for prognosis prediction in prostate cancer. Semin Urol Oncol. 1998;16:145–152. - PubMed
    1. Freedman GM, Negendank WG, Hudes GR, Shaer AH, Hanks GE. Preliminary results of a bone marrow magnetic resonance imaging protocol for patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Urology. 1999;54:118–123. - PubMed
    1. Venkitaraman R, Sohaib SA, Barbachano Y, Parker CC, Khoo V, Huddart RA, Horwich A, Dearnaley DP. Detection of occult spinal cord compression with magnetic resonance imaging of the spine. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2007;19:528–531. - PubMed
    1. Lecouvet FE, Geukens D, Stainier A, Jamar F, Jamart J, d’Othée BJ, Therasse P, Vande Berg B, Tombal B. Magnetic resonance imaging of the axial skeleton for detecting bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: diagnostic and cost-effectiveness and comparison with current detection strategies. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3281–3287. - PubMed