Cargando…

Prostate imaging features on magnetic resonance imaging of young patients

OBJECTIVE: To identify magnetic resonance imaging findings of the prostate in young adults, including symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. The aim of this study is to evaluate the main aspects of prostate imaging in young patients. METHODS: A total of 102 patients under 40 years of age, who underw...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Suguino, Renan Kinoshita, Mussi, Thaís Caldara, Coelho, Fernando Morbeck Almeida, Baroni, Ronaldo Hueb
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Instituto Israelita de Ensino e Pesquisa Albert Einstein 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9744424/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36477522
http://dx.doi.org/10.31744/einstein_journal/2022AO0024
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To identify magnetic resonance imaging findings of the prostate in young adults, including symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. The aim of this study is to evaluate the main aspects of prostate imaging in young patients. METHODS: A total of 102 patients under 40 years of age, who underwent prostate magnetic resonance imaging between January 2016 and January 2019, were included in this study. The patients were divided into two groups: symptomatic for prostatitis (Group 1) and asymptomatic (Group 2). Magnetic resonance imaging scans were anonymized and interpreted by a radiologist blinded for clinical information. The study evaluated peripheral zone signal in T2-weighted sequences, diffusion and apparent diffusion coefficient map; peripheral zone enhancement pattern; seminal vesicles and periprostatic fat. RESULTS: All evaluated criteria did not present statistically significant differences between the two groups. The most common pattern was heterogeneous hyposignal on T2 (57.9% in Group 1 and 57.8% in Group 2; p=0.506), mild diffuse / wedge-shaped areas of hypointensity on apparent diffusion coefficient map (61.4% in Group 1 and 64.4% in Group 2; p=0.931) and early post-contrast enhancement (73.7% in Group 1 and 68.9% in Group 2, p=0719). CONCLUSION: The magnetic resonance imaging aspect of young patients showed no differences between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients.