Detecting seminal vesicle involvement is an important part of local staging of prostate cancer and it has great impact on treatment planning and prognosis (
10). Patients with locally advanced prostate cancer are mostly treated by radiation therapy rather than radical prostatectomy. Treating patients with stage T3 prostate cancer either with external beam radiation therapy or radical prostatectomy affects the health related quality of life (
11). Seminal vesicle involvement also influences local recurrence of prostate cancer either after radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy.
Before widespread use of MRI for local staging of prostate cancer, making decision about treatment strategy was mainly based on the PSA level of the patients and Gleason score and tumor volume reported by pathologist after TRUS guided biopsy (clinical staging) (
4).
Our study showed that there is significant difference in the PSA level and Gleason score between two groups of patients with and without seminal vesicle involvement. The PSA level and Gleason score are significantly higher in patients whose seminal vesicles were involved, but this is not absolute. We had patients with a PSA level of 58 µg/mL and a Gleason score of 9 without involvement of seminal vesicles and a PSA level of 0.8 µg/mL and a Gleason score of 6 in patients with seminal vesicle involvement. It means that there is a wide range of overlap between the two groups regarding PSA level and Gleason score. There are many patients suspected to have limited disease and after they undergo surgery, they show a locally advanced disease that is diagnosed after radical prostatectomy and pathologic evaluation of the resected specimen.
In a study conducted by Park et al. the accuracy of endorectal MRI in predicting extraprostatic extension and seminal vesicle invasion in clinically localized prostate cancer was evaluated in 54 patients. A sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 92% was shown (
12). They stated that MRI is more accurate in detecting seminal vesicle involvement in higher Gleason score levels and it shows better sensitivity in high-grade tumors.
Watter et al. in a study on 81 patients evaluated the value of endorectal MRI, Gleason score of biopsy specimens and preoperative PSA levels in local staging of prostate cancer and especially differentiating between T2 and T3 stages tumors (
13). They stated that obliteration of recto-prostatic angle seen in endorectal MRI and total pathologic Gleason score have the best predictive value for diagnosis of stage T3 prostate cancer. Our study also showed the high accuracy of MRI in detecting seminal vesicle involvement with high sensitivity and specificity.
Kim et al. in a study on 32 patients evaluated the accuracy of MRI in local staging of prostate cancer by only using surface coil. They reported a sensitivity of 82.4% and specificity of 87.2% (
10). They stated that accurate local tumor staging is important. It affects the prognosis and plan for treatment.
Lee et al. in a study on 91 patients compared the accuracy of MRI in local staging of prostate cancer using only pelvic phase array coil and only endorectal coil (
14). They reported the area under the curve (AUC value) of 0.671 for endorectal coil and 0.657 for pelvic phase array coil. They stated that there is no significant difference in the assessment of seminal vesicle involvement between the two methods and using surface coil is more comfortable for patients. In our study, we achieved high sensitivity and high specificity in detecting seminal vesicle involvement because of obtaining high-resolution MR images of prostate with simultaneous use of endorectal and pelvic phase array coils.
Futterer et al. in a study on 99 patients showed that dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI added to T2-weighted images will improve the accuracy of prostate cancer staging especially for less-experienced radiologists (
15). In our study, we used both T2-weighted images and contrast enhanced images to detect seminal vesicle invasion.
In this study, we reported a sensitivity of 97% for detection of seminal vesicle involvement. To the best of our knowledge, this is higher than the sensitivity reported in all previous published studies. We believe that the detection of prostate cancer and its extension greatly depends on the experience of the reporting radiologist. This experience increases significantly with team-work between the radiologist, clinical pathologist and urology surgeon. The report from the pathologist and urologist on each patient is the best tool for a radiologist to be aware of the potential pitfalls and to avoid the situations in MR studies that may be mistaken for seminal vesicle involvement. Since all the reports of this study were performed by a single radiologist with more than 8 years of experience in the MRI of the prostate with a large number of patients referred from different areas of the country, the accuracy of reports were higher than many foreign countries that do not have such high number of patients. In addition, in this study, we used the two most important parameters (multidirectional high resolution T2W images and dynamic contrast study) to detect seminal vesicle involvement. This study showed that high resolution MRI using endorectal and pelvic coils is highly accurate in detecting seminal vesicle involvement and it is much more reliable than reports of PSA level and Gleason score for decision making about treatment strategy. It is suggested that all patients with prostate cancer proved by TRUS guided biopsy undergo local staging.
At the end, we conclude that MRI with endorectal coil is a valuable imaging technique with suitable accuracy in detecting seminal vesicle involvement in patients with prostate cancer.