Open Access

MR imaging of pelvic lymph nodes

Cancer Imaging20153:17

DOI: 10.1102/1470-7330.2003.0015

Accepted: 5 November 2002

Published: 5 May 2015

Abstract

The occurrence of metastases to pelvic lymph nodes profoundly affects the prognosis of pelvic malignancies, making accurate staging crucial for selecting appropriate treatment. Modalities for the detection of metastatic lymph nodes are lymph node dissection, lymphangiography, and non-invasive techniques such as computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); the role of these techniques will be reviewed. Although this review will focus on prostate cancer, the statements may be generalised for other malignancies, as the metastases in pelvic lymph nodes have a similar pattern for other tumors.

Introduction

The occurrence of metastases to pelvic lymph nodes profoundly affects the prognosis of pelvic malignancies, making accurate staging crucial for selecting appropriate treatment. Modalities for the detection of metastatic lymph nodes are lymph node dissection, lymphangiography, and non-invasive techniques such as computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); the role of these techniques will be reviewed. Although this review will focus on prostate cancer, the statements may be generalised for other malignancies, as the metastases in pelvic lymph nodes have a similar pattern for other tumors.

Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND)

PLND has traditionally been an integral component of prostate (pelvic) cancer staging. Pathological examination of lymph node tissue remains the gold standard for determining whether or not lymph node metastases are present. However, there has been recent interest in identifying patients for whom lymph node dissection may not be justified on the basis of cost and potential morbidity[1].

PLND is an expensive, invasive procedure, with attendant complications, and appears to have no therapeutic value[2]. Reported complications of PLND are obturator nerve injury, trauma to major vessels, thromboembolic events, lymphocoele formation, chronic lower extremity and genital edema and infection[3].

The advent of prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening and increased clinical awareness have led to considerable stage migration and a low incidence of lymph node involvement in contemporary radical prostatectomy series [4]. Multiple models and nomograms combining PSA, clinical stage and Gleason score have been developed to predict the probability of metastatic disease[57]. Others have proposed PSA and Gleason score cut-off points for selecting patients in whom the risk of nodal disease is low, obviating the need for PLND. Essentially, these cut-offs would define an acceptable percentage of patients with potentially detectable metastatic disease who would nevertheless undergo radical prostatectomy. Currently, PLND is not carried out in patients deemed to be at low risk for lymph node metastasis. Using a false-positive rate of 3%, Bluestein et al. estimated that 25% of patients with clinically localised disease could be spared PLND[6]. Rees et al. constructed a predictive model to identify patients with less than 3% likelihood of harboring lymph node disease[8]. Campbell et al. observed similar results, in that 73% of their patients were at low risk and the rate of positive lymph nodes was only 2.2%[9]. How can an acceptable false-negative rate be defined if PLND is not carried out? When using any of these models and nomograms, a small percentage of patients harboring positive lymph nodes are in the low-risk group and subsequently undergo radical prostatectomy. It seems logical that the benefit of omitting PLND in 50–70% of patients would outweigh the 2–5% of patients with missed positive lymph nodes. Rees et al. stated that physicians evaluating patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer should be willing to accept a false-negative rate of 1.8% or less when deciding whether to perform PLND for evaluation[8]. In general, it is advisable to omit PLND in patients with PSA <10 ng/ml and Gleason score <7[2,10–14], or PSA <20 ng/ml and Gleason score <7 [10,15]. The threshold, however, has only been evaluated objectively by Meng and co-authors by using a formal decision analysis[16]. Even assuming that PLND and frozen section analysis of lymph nodes is 100% sensitive, their model supports performing PLND only in patients with a greater than 18% prevalence of positive lymph nodes. The sensitivity of PLND is limited by the fact that positive nodes will go unnoticed in 12% of positive-node patients and 5% of patients subjected to lymphadenectomy. This is caused by the fact that these patients have isolated metastases to the common and external iliac nodes, which are not included in the PLND generally used in prostate cancer[17,18]. These findings are supported by Barth et al.[19] and Weingartner[20]. They found that the detection of lymph node metastases, and consequently the prognostic accuracy, is mainly influenced by the total number of lymph nodes examined. At least 13–20 nodes should be removed. Furthermore, the efficacy of frozen section analysis of pelvic nodes has also been questioned[21]. Reported false-negative results are 100%[22], 40%[23], 33%[1,2428], 30%[4,29], 23%[30], 19–7%[31].

Lymph node metastasis may be detected by methods other than open PLND. Minimally invasive techniques, such as laparoscopic and mini-laparotomy PLND, are well described and provide comparable information and improved patient recovery. Although the complication rate of laparoscopic dissection is lower, it requires general anaesthesia and hospitalisation. However, they offer no advantage with respect to surgery time and cost[912,3236].

Staging lymph nodes: imaging

A non-invasive, reliable method for detecting and staging nodal metastasis would reduce unnecessary surgery. Currently, there are five imaging techniques described for nodal staging: lymphangiography, CT, MRI, prostascint radio-immunoscintigraphy, and 18FDG-PET. Bipedal lymphangiography is no longer used as a screening method, although it has the capacity to show micro metastases in normal-sized nodes. Its inability to depict internal iliac nodes and its potential invasiveness are major drawbacks.

CT scanning and MRI

Cross-sectional imaging modalities like CT and MRI have a low sensitivity (36%)[22,29,30,3762] because both modalities use the non-specific criterion of size to distinguish between normal and malignant nodes, and because both normal nodal and metastatic tissue have the same signal intensity. The most generally accepted criterion for a node to be metastatic on CT and MR imaging is size. A minimal axial diameter of 10 mm or less is considered to be normal.

Recently, three-dimensional high-resolution MRI techniques have been used, which has allowed not only determination of nodal size but also of nodal shape[3]. These authors considered round nodes with a minimal axial diameter of more than 8 mm to be metastatic, in addition to oval nodes with a size of more than 10 mm[49]. Using the additional feature of shape improved their sensitivity to 75%. However in the same study, metastases in normal-sized lymph nodes (25%) were still going unnoticed.

Although fast dynamic MRI has been shown to improve sensitivity by showing fast and high enhancement in metastatic nodes, specificity has decreased. In addition, fast dynamic is further limited by its low resolution and pronounced vascular artifacts[63].

Thus staging PLND remains the most sensitive method for assessing lymph node metastases and continues to be the first step in the management protocol. Cost-effective analysis performed by Wolf et al.[29] pointed out that imaging should be restricted to patients with a high probability of lymph node metastases. These authors stated that when the probability of positive nodes based on PSA level and clinical stage was 32%, the sensitivity of the imaging method must be 36% to be beneficial. When the sensitivity was 25%, as in their series, prior probability should be 45%. Thus they concluded that imaging was beneficial only when the pretest probability of lymph node metastasis was high. The most important parameter was the sensitivity of cross-sectional imaging for lymph adenopathy. Pelvic imaging combined with fine-needle aspiration has also been investigated. The data of Wolf et al. suggest that only a subset of patients at high risk for lymph node metastasis benefits from cross-sectional imaging and preoperative lymph node sampling.

Prostascint radio-immunoscintigraphy and 18FDG-PET

Although very promising in metastatic lung cancer, the role of 18FDG-PET scanning is limited in the urinary tract region, as 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose accumulates as part of the physiologic process in this area. This makes an evaluation of metastases at this site difficult[64]. This method is further limited by its low uptake in metastatic nodes, especially in prostate cancer. In a study using PET in 64 patients with urinary bladder cancer, Bachor et al. obtained a sensitivity of 67% and a negative predictive value of 84%. In addition, their reported specificity of 86% is lower than those obtained with CT and MRI[65]. Heicappell et al. obtained a sensitivity of 65% with their data[66].

With radio immunoscintigraphy (prostascint) in patients with prostate cancer, Hinkle et al. and Manyak et al. found a sensitivity of 75 and 62% respectively[52,67].

Although the results of prostascint radio immunoscintigraphy and 18FDG-PET are slightly better than those of CT and MR imaging, they are not high enough to replace PLND. A negative prostascint scan may not eliminate the need for PLND, due to low sensitivity for small volume disease.

New developments: MRI after intravenous injection of a lymph node specific contrast agent

Previous reports have shown that the information about lymph nodes on MR images can be improved by pharmaceutical manipulation of tissue proton relaxation times. Ultra small super paramagnetic iron oxide particles (USPIO) with a long plasma circulation time have been shown to be suitable as an MR contrast agent for intravenous MR lymphangiography[68,69]. After intravenous injection, the USPIO particles are transported to the interstitial space and from there through the lymph vessels to the lymph nodes. Once within normally functioning nodes, the iron particles are taken up by macrophages; due to the T2*—and susceptibility effect of iron oxide, they reduce the signal intensity of normal lymph node tissue in which they accumulate, thus producing a negative enhancement. In areas of lymph nodes that are involved with malignant cells, macrophages are replaced by cancer cells, which lack reticuloendothelial activity and are unable to take up the USPIO particles. Other conditions in which the uptake may be decreased include inflammatory nodes, as was the case in two patients in our study. In addition, due to increased vascular permeability and increased diffusion in cancer tissue, there is leakage of USPIO particles into the metastatic areas, which produces a low local concentration and non-clustering of USPIO particles at these metastatic sites[70]. Through their T1 relaxivity, this can induce an increase in signal intensity on T1-weighted images, producing positive enhancement[7173]. Thus the ability of post-contrast MRI to identify metastatic areas in the lymph nodes depends primarily on the degree of uptake of USPIO by the macrophages in normal lymph node tissue and the leakage of USPIO particles in the metastatic area itself. Twenty-four hours after intravenous injection of USPIO, normal lymph node and malignant tissue have different signal intensities on MR images, thus this non-invasive technique may result in the detection of metastatic deposits in normal-size nodes[71].

Thus far only two papers have appeared using this technique in the evaluation of pelvic malignancies, reporting a sensitivity of 82 and 86%[71,74]. Other papers include lymph node evaluation in other areas, predominantly head and neck and chest. Reported sensitivities (mean 91%, range 84–100%) are higher compared to pre-contrast MRI[7579]. As these authors did not use highresolution techniques, they had limited visualisation of small (<8 mm) lymph nodes.

A pilot study was performed at Mass General in Boston, Charite in Berlin and UMC in Nijmegen, on patients with histologically proven bladder and prostate cancer. High-resolution techniques (at 1.5 T using a body phased-array coil) on post-USPIO MRI significantly improved the rate of detection of small nodal metastases in normal-sized nodes (<8 mm). Normal nodal tissue showed signal loss 24–36 h post injection. Metastases showed equal or higher signal. The 3D T1-weighted sequence vessels, especially veins, showed high signal intensity, thus facilitating separation from nodes. On the T2*-GRE sequence in most patients the vessels showed low signal intensity. Sensitivity and accuracy and negative predictive value showed a significant improvement, using post USPIO, to 85, 87 and 92%. This was due to the detection of metastases in normal-size nodes. During the slow (30 min) infusion of the USPIO contrast, only two patients showed minor side effects (low back pain), caused by too rapid an infusion. After slowing down the infusion rate the symptoms decreased, and no further treatment was needed.

Conclusions

PLND is unnecessary in the subset of patients in whom the risk of lymph node involvement is less than 18%. CT and MRI do not have the desired sensitivity in identifying metastases to replace PLND. Only patients at very high risk (36%) for lymph node metastasis benefit from CT and MRI using preoperative fine-needle aspiration biopsy of enlarged nodes. Although new techniques like prostascint radio immunoscintigraphy and 18FDG-PET have a higher sensitivity than CT and MRI, it is not high enough to replace PLND. Initial results with MR lymphography show a promising sensitivity (85%) and negative predictive value (92%) in the detection of nodal metastases of prostate and bladder cancer. If the results of a pilot study can be confirmed in a multicenter study, PLND may be avoided in most patients with prostate cancer.

Notes

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Radiology, University Medical Center

References

  1. Epstein JI, Oesterling JE, Eggleston JC et al. Frozen section detection of lymph node metastases in prostatic carcinoma: accuracy in grossly uninvolved pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens. J Urol 1986; 136: 1234.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Narayan P, Fournier G, Galendran V et al. Utility of preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen concentration and biopsy gleason score in predicting risk of pelvic lymph node metastases in prostate cancer. Urology 1994; 44: 519–24.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Morgan WR, Lieber MM. Pelvic lymphadectomy. In: Current Genitourinary Cancer Surgery. Crawford ED, Das S, eds. Philadelphia: Lee & Febiger, 1990: 162–9.Google Scholar
  4. Kakehi Y, Kamoto T, Okuno H, Terai A, Terachi T, Ogawa O. Pre-operative frozen section examination of pelvic nodes is unnecessary for the majority of clinically localized prostate cancers in the prostate-specific antigen era. Int J Urol 2000; 7: 281–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bishoff JT, Reyes A, Thompson IM et al. Pelvic lymphadenectomy can be omitted in selected patients with carcinoma of the prostate: development of a system of patient selection. Urology 1995; 45: 270.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bluestein DL, Bostwick DG, Bergstralh EJ et al. Eliminating the need for bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy in select patients with prostate cancer. J Urol 1994; 151: 1315.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional study. JAMA 1997; 277: 1445.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Rees MA, Resnick MI, Oesterling JE. Use of prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, and digital rectal examination in staging patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Urol Clin North Am 1997; 24: 379.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell SC, Klein EA, Levin HS, Piedmonte MR. Open pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: a reassessment. Urology 1995; 46: 352–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Alagiri M, Colton MD, Seidmon EJ, Greenberg RE, Hanno PM. The staging of pelvic lymphadenectomy: implications as an adjunctive procedure for clinically localized prostate cancer. Br J Urol 1997; 80: 243–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Ekman P. Predicting pelvic lymph node involvement in patients with localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 1997; 32(Suppl 3): 60–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Parra RO, Andrus C, Boullier J. Staging laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection: comparison of results with open pelvic lymphadenectomy. J Urol 1992; 147: 875.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Salomon L, Hoznek A, Lefrere-Belda MA, Bellot J, Chopin DK, Abbou CC. Nondissection of pelvic lymph nodes does not influence the results of perineal radical prostatectomy in selected patients. Euro Urol 2000; 37: 297–300.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Stone NN, Stock RG. Laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection in the staging of prostate cancer. Mt Sinai J Med 1999; 66: 26–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoenig DM, Chi S, Porter C, Tackett L, Smith DS, Cohen SI, Stein BS. Risk of nodal metastases at laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy using PSA, Gleason score, and clinical stage in men with localized prostate cancer. J Endourol 1997; 11: 263–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Meng MV, Carroll PR. When is pelvic lymph node dissection necessary before radical prostatectomy? A decision analysis. J Urol 2000; 164: 1235–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Fowler JE, Torgerson L, McLeod DG et al. Radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy: observations on the accuracy of staging with lymph node frozen sections. J Urol 1981; 126: 618.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Mizutani K, Ono Y, Kato N et al. Clinical outcome of radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection. Hinyokika Kiyo 1995; 41: 867–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Barth PJ, Gerharz EW, Ramaswamy A, Riedmiller H. The influence of lymph node counts on the detection of pelvic lymph node metastasis in prostate cancer. Pathol Res Pract 1999; 195: 633–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Weingartner K, Ramaswamy A, Bittinger A, Gerharz EW, Voge D, Riedmiller H. Anatomical basis for pelvic lymphadenectomy in prostate cancer: results of an autopsy study and implications for the clinic. J Urol 1996; 156: 1969–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Frydenberg M, Stricker PD, Kaye KW. Prostate cancer diagnosis and management. Lancet 1997; 349: 1681–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Jakse G, Brehmer B, Wolff JM, Aretz R, Handt S. Radical perineal prostatectomy without lymphadenectomy. Patients with cT1+2, G1+2, PSA < or = 10 ng/ml prostate carcinoma. Urologe A 1999; 38: 143–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Davis GL. Sensitivity of frozen section examination of pelvic lymph node for metastatic prostate carcinoma. Cancer 1995; 76: 661–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Catalona WJ, Stein AJ. Accuracy of frozen section detection of lymph node metastases in prostatic carcinoma. J Urol 1982; 127: 460.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Fowler JE, Whitmore WF. The incidence and extent of pelvic lymph node metastases in apparently localized prostatic cancer. Cancer 1981; 47: 2941–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hermansen DK, Whitmore WF. Frozen section lymph node analysis in pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 1988; 139: 1073.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Sadlowski RW, Donahue DJ, Richman AV et al. Accuracy of frozen section diagnosis in pelvic lymph node staging biopsies for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1983; 129: 324.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Young MP, Kirby RS, O’Donoghue EP, Parkinson MC. Accuracy and cost of intraoperative lymph node frozen sections atradical prostatectomy. J Clin Pathol 1999; 52: 925–7.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Wolf JS, Cher M, dalla’Era M, Presti JC, Hricak H. The use and accuracy of cross-sectional imaging and fine needle aspiration cytology for detection of pelvic lymph node metastases before radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1995; 153: 993–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Golimbu M, Morales P, Al-Askari S, Shulman Y. CAT scanning in the staging of prostatic cancer. Urol 1981; 18: 305.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Froeling FMJA, Witjes JA, Oosterhof GON. Laparoscopische pelvine lymfklierdissectie goed bruikbaar voor de stadiering van klinisch gelokaliseerd prostaatcarcinoom. NTvG 1995; 139: 618–22.Google Scholar
  32. Rogers E, Gurpinar T, Dillioglugil O, Kattan MW, Goad JR, Scardino PT, Griffith DP. The role of digital rectal examination, biopsy Gleason sum and prostate-specific antigen in selecting patients who require pelvic lymph node dissections for prostate cancer. Br J Urol 1996; 78: 419–25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Rukstalis DB, Gerber GS, Volgelzang NJ et al. Laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection: a review of103 consecutive cases. J Urol 1994; 151: 670.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Perrotti M, Pantuck A, Rabbani F, Israeli RS, Weiss RE. Review of staging modalities in clinically localized prostate cancer. Urology 1999; 54: 208–14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Shackley DC, Irving SO, Brough WA, O’Reilly PH. Staging laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy in prostate cancer. BJU Int 1999; 83: 260–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Spevack L, Killion LT, West JC, Rooker GM, Brewer EA, Cuddy PG. Predicting the patient at low risk for lymph node metastasis with localized prostate cancer: an analysis of four statistical models. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996; 34: 543–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Altwein JE, Leitenberger A, Ay R. Value of computed tomography and lymphography for the demonstration of pelvic lymph node metastases in prostatic cancer. Urol Int 1984; 39: 178–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Amo FH, Verdu Tartajo F, Diez Cordero JM, Lledo Garcia E, Bueno Chomon G, Leal Hernandez F. Reliability of CT for determining lymphatic involvement in patients with prostate cancer. Arch Esp Urol 1997; 50: 464–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Arger PH. Computed tomography of the lower urinary tract. Urol Clin N Am 1985; 12: 677.Google Scholar
  40. Engeler CE, Wasserman NF, Zhang G. Preoperative assessment of prostatic carcinoma by computerized tomography: weaknesses and new perspectives. Urology 1992; 40: 346.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Benson KH, Watson RA, Spring DB, Agee RE. The value of computerized tomography in the evaluation of pelvic lymph nodes. J Urol 1981; 126: 63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Bezzi M, Kressel HY, Allen KS, Schiebler ML, Altman HG, Wein AJ, Pollack HM. Prostatic carcinoma: staging with MR imaging at 1.5 T. Radiology 1988; 169: 339.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Biondetti PR, Lee JKT, Ling D, Catalona WJ. Clinical stage B prostate carcinoma: staging with MR imaging. Radiology 1987; 162: 325.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Emory TH, Reinke DB, Hill AL, Lange PH. Use of CT to reduce understaging in prostatic cancer: comparison with conventional staging techniques. AJR 1983; 141: 351.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Flanigan RC, Mohler JL, King CT, Atwell JR, Umer MA, Loh FK, McRoberts JW. Preoperative lymph node evaluation in prostatic cancer patients who are surgical candidates: the role of lymphangiography and computerized tomography scanning with directed fine needle aspiration. J Urol 1985; 134: 84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Giri PGS, Walsh JW, Hazra TA, Texter JH, Koontz WW. Role of computed tomography in the evaluation and management of carcinoma of the prostate. Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phys 1982; 8: 283.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Hoefman E, Hulshof MCCM, De Reijke ThM, Bruines E, Redekop WK, van Straalen JP. De samenhang tussen de serumconcentratie van prostaatspecifiek antigeen en de skeleten CT-scan bij de stagering van primair prostaatcarcinoom. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1998; 142: 1142–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Hricak H, Dooms GC, Jeffrey RB, Avallone A, Jacobs D, Benton WK, Narayan P, Tanagho EA. Prostatic carcinoma: staging by clinical assessment, CT, and MR imaging. Radiology 1987; 162: 331.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Jager GJ, Barentsz JO, Oosterhof GO, Witjes JA, Ruijs SJ. Pelvic adenopathy in prostatic and urinary bladder carcinoma: MR imaging with a three-dimensional TI-weighted magnetization-prepared-rapid gradient-echo sequence. AJR 1996; 167: 1503–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. McSherry SA, Levy F, Schiebler ML, Keefe B, Dent GA, Mohler Jl. Preoperative prediction of pathological tumor volume and stage in clinically localized prostate cancer: comparison of digital rectal examination, transrectal ultrasomography and magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 1991; 146: 85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Magnusson A, Fritjofsson A, Norlen BJ, Wicklund H. The value of computed tomography and ultrasound in assessment of pelvic lymph node metastases in patients with clinically locally confined carcinoma of the prostate. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1988; 22: 7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Manyak MJ, Hinkle GH, Olsen JO et al. Immunoscintigraphy with indium-111-capromab penetide: evaluation before definitive therapy in patients with prostate cancer. Urol 1999; 54: 1058–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Morgan CL, Calkins RF, Cavalcanti EJ. Computed tomography in the evaluation, staging, and therapy of carcinoma of the bladder and prostate. Radiology 1981; 140: 751.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Mukamel E, Hannah J, Barbaric Z, deKernion JB. The value of computerized tomography scan and magnetic resonance imaging in staging prostatic carcinoma: comparison with the clinical and histological staging. J Urol 1986; 136: 1231.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Oyen RH, van Poppel HP, Ameye FE et al. Lymph node staging of localized prostatic carcinoma with CT and CT-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy: prospective study of 285 patients. Radiology 1994; 190: 315–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Platt JF, Bree RL, Schwab RE. The accuracy of CT in the staging of carcinoma of the prostate. AJR 1987; 149: 315.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Salo JO, Kivisaari L, Rannikko S, Lehtonen T. The value of CT in detecting pelvic lymph node metastases in cases of bladder and prostate carcinoma. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1986; 20: 261.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Rifkin MD, Zerhouni EA, Gatsonis CA et al. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in staging early prostate cancer: results of a multi-institutional cooperative trial. N Engl J Med 1990; 323: 621.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Roy C, Le Bras Y, Mangold L, Tuchmann C, Vasilescu C, Saussine C, Jacqmin D. Value of asymmentry criterion in MRI for the diagnosis of small pelvic lymphadenopathies (inferior or equal to 1 cm). J Radiol 1996; 77: 1183–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Suarez P, Mondes L, Bernardo N et al. Correlation between computed axial tomography and ileum obturating lymphadenectomy in localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Arch Esp Urol 1997; 50: 131–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Vapnek JM, Hricak H, Shinohara K, Popovich M, Carroll P. Staging accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging versus transrectal ultrasound in stages A and B prostatic cancer. Urol Int 1994; 53: 191–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Weinerman PM, Arger PH, Coleman BG, Pollack HM, Banner MP, Wein AJ. Pelvic adenopathy from bladder and prostate carcinoma: detection by rapid-sequence computed tomography. AJR 1983; 140: 95–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Barentsz JO, Jager GJ, van Vierzen PB et al. Staging urinary bladder cancer after transurethral biopsy: value of fast dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 1996; 201: 185–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Pieterman RM, van Putten JWG, Meuzelaar JJ et al. Preoperative staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with positron-emission tomography. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 254.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Bachor R, Kotzerke J, Reske SN, Hautmann R. Lymph node staging of bladder neck carcinoma with positron emission tomography. Urologe 1999; 38: 46–50.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Heicappell R, Muller Mattheis V, Reinhardt M, Vosberg H, Gerharz CD, Muller Gartner H, Ackermann R. Staging of pelvic lymph nodes in neoplasms of the bladder and prostate by positron emission tomography with 2-[(18)F]-2-deoxy-D-glucose. Euro Urol 1999; 36: 582–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  67. Hinkle GH, Burgers JK, Neal CE et al. Multicenter radioimmunoscintigraphic evaluation of patients with prostate carcinoma using indium-111 capromab pendetide. Cancer 1998; 83: 739–47.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Vassallo P, Matei C, Heston WDW et al. AMI-227-enhanced MR lymphography: usefulness for differentiating reactive from tumor bearing lymph nodes. Radiology 1994; 193: 501–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Weissleder R, Elizondo G, Wittenberg J et al. Ultra small paramagnetic iron oxide: an intravenous contrast agent for assessing lymph nodes with MR imaging. Radiology 1990; 175: 494–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Gerlowski LE, Jain RK. Microvascular permeability of normal and neoplastic tissues. Microvasc Res 1986; 31: 288–305.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Bellin MF, Roy C, Kinkel K et al. Lymph node metastases: safety and effectiveness of MRI with ultra small superparamagnetic iron oxide particles. Initial clinical experience. Radiology 1998; 207: 799–808.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Chambon C, Clement O, Le Blanche A, Schouman-Claeys, Frija G. Superparamagnetic iron oxides as positive MR contrast agents: in vitro and in vivo evidence. Magn Reson Imaging 1993; 11: 509–19.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Guimares R, Clement O, Bittoun J, Carnot F, Frija G. MR Lymphography with super paramagnetic nanoparticles in rats: pathologic basis for contrast enhancement. AJR 1994; 162: 201–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  74. Harisinghani MG, Saini S, Slater GJ, Schnall MD, Rifkin MD. MR imaging of pelvic lymph nodes in primary pelvic carcinoma with ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide (Combidex): preliminary observations. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997; 7: 161–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Anzai Y, Prince MR. Iron oxide-enhanced MR lymphography: the evaluation of cervical lymph node metatstases in head and neck cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997; 7: 75–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Kerstine KH, Stanford W, Mullan BF et al. PET, CT, and MRI with Combidex for mediastinal staging in non-small lung carcinoma. Ann Thorac Surg 1999; 68: 1022–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  77. Hoffman HT, Quets J, Toshiaki T et al. Functional magnetic resonance imaging using iron oxide particles in characterizing head and neck adenopathy. Laryngoscope 2000; 110: 1425–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Nguyen BC, Stanford W, Thompson et al. Multicenter clinical trial of ultra small superparamagnetic iron oxide in the evaluation of mediastinal lymph nodes in patients with primary lung cancer. J Magn Res Imaging 1999; 10: 468–73.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  79. Pannu HK, Wang KP, Borman TL, Bluemke DA. MR imaging of mediastinal lymph nodes: evaluation using superparamagnetic contrast agent. J Magn Res Imaging 2000; 12: 899–904.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© International Cancer Imaging Society 2003