INTRODUCTION: Imaging studies are an integral and important diagnostic modality to stage, to monitor and follow-up patients with metastatic urogenital cancer. The currently available guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of urogenital cancer do not provide the clinician with evidence-based recommendations for daily practice. OBJECTIVES: To develop scientifically valid recommendations with regard to the most appropriate imaging technique and the most useful time interval in metastatic urogenital cancer patients undergoing systemic therapy. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed searching MedLine, Embase and Web of Science databases using the terms prostate, renal cell, bladder and testis cancer in combination with the variables lymph node, lung, liver, bone metastases, chemotherapy and molecular therapy, and the search terms computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography were applied. A total of 11,834 records were retrieved from all databases. The panel reviewed the records to identify articles with the highest level of evidence using the recommendation of the US Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. CONCLUSIONS: Contrast-enhanced computed tomography remains the standard imaging technique for monitoring of pulmonary, hepatic and lymph node metastases. Bone scintigraphy is still the most widely used imaging technique for the detection and follow-up of osseous lesions. For clinical trials it might be replaced by either PET-CT or MRI of the skeletal axis. Response assessment for patients treated with cytotoxic regime is best performed by the RECIST/WHO criteria; treatment response to molecular triggered therapy is best assessed by CT evaluating decrease in tumor size and density. Cross-sectional imaging studies for response assessment might be obtained after each 2 cycles of systemic therapy to early stratify responders from non-responders. Copyright (c) 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel.
INTRODUCTION: Imaging studies are an integral and important diagnostic modality to stage, to monitor and follow-up patients with metastatic urogenital cancer. The currently available guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of urogenital cancer do not provide the clinician with evidence-based recommendations for daily practice. OBJECTIVES: To develop scientifically valid recommendations with regard to the most appropriate imaging technique and the most useful time interval in metastatic urogenital cancerpatients undergoing systemic therapy. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed searching MedLine, Embase and Web of Science databases using the terms prostate, renal cell, bladder and testis cancer in combination with the variables lymph node, lung, liver, bone metastases, chemotherapy and molecular therapy, and the search terms computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography were applied. A total of 11,834 records were retrieved from all databases. The panel reviewed the records to identify articles with the highest level of evidence using the recommendation of the US Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. CONCLUSIONS: Contrast-enhanced computed tomography remains the standard imaging technique for monitoring of pulmonary, hepatic and lymph node metastases. Bone scintigraphy is still the most widely used imaging technique for the detection and follow-up of osseous lesions. For clinical trials it might be replaced by either PET-CT or MRI of the skeletal axis. Response assessment for patients treated with cytotoxic regime is best performed by the RECIST/WHO criteria; treatment response to molecular triggered therapy is best assessed by CT evaluating decrease in tumor size and density. Cross-sectional imaging studies for response assessment might be obtained after each 2 cycles of systemic therapy to early stratify responders from non-responders. Copyright (c) 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Authors: M Thalgott; M M Heck; M Eiber; M Souvatzoglou; G Hatzichristodoulou; V Kehl; B J Krause; B Rack; M Retz; J E Gschwend; U Andergassen; R Nawroth Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2015-02-24 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: V Hechler; M Rink; D Beyersdorff; M Beer; A J Beer; V Panebianco; M Pecoraro; C Bolenz; G Salomon Journal: Urologe A Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Stefan Aufderklamm; Jörg Hennenlotter; Tilman Todenhoefer; Georgios Gakis; David Schilling; Ulrich Vogel; Ursula Kuehs; Johannes Dlugosch; Judith Knapp; Axel Merseburger; Valentina Gerber; Anna Ordelheide; Joachim Hevler; Arnulf Stenzl; Christian Schwentner Journal: World J Urol Date: 2011-10-04 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Carlos I Basilio-de-Leo; Christian I Villeda-Sandoval; Carolina Culebro-García; Francisco Rodríguez-Covarrubias; Ricardo A Castillejos-Molina Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2015 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Petra Anheuser; Arlo Radtke; Christian Wülfing; Jennifer Kranz; Gazanfer Belge; Klaus-Peter Dieckmann Journal: Urol Int Date: 2017-06-07 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Jonas Busch; Stefanie Schmidt; Peter Albers; Julia Heinzelbecker; Sabine Kliesch; Julia Lackner; David Pfister; Christian Ruf; Christian Winter; Friedemann Zengerling; Dirk Beyersdorff Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-01-17 Impact factor: 4.226