OBJECTIVES: In this article the state of art the of prostate cancer (Pca) imaging and non-surgical salvage treatments (STs) is surveyed in order to explore the impact of imaging findings on the identification of radiorecurrent Pca after external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). METHODS: A computerised search was performed to identify all relevant studies in Medline up to 2012. Additional articles were extracted based on recommendations from an expert panel of authors. RESULTS: Definitive EBRT for Pca is increasingly used as treatment. After radiorecurrent Pca, non-surgical STs are emerging and shifting from investigational status to more established therapeutic options. Therefore, several scientific societies have published guidelines including clinical and imaging recommendations, even if the timing, efficacy and long-term toxicity of these STs have to be established. In some measure, accurately delineating the location and the extent of cancer is critical in selecting target lesions and in identifying patients who are candidates for STs. However, there is increasing awareness that anatomical approaches based on measurements of tumour size have substantial limitations, especially for tumours of unknown activity that persist or recur following irradiation CONCLUSIONS: To date, the main focus for innovations in imaging is the combination of excellence in anatomical resolution with specific biological correlates that depict metabolic processes and hallmarks at the tumour level. The emergence of new molecular markers could favour the development of methods that directly determine their presence, thereby improving tumour detection. KEY POINTS: Imaging may influence therapeutic decisions during non-surgical STs. MRI findings correlate with parametric maps derived from multiple functional techniques. Non-surgical salvage treatments allow local tumour control in patients with radiorecurrent PCa.
OBJECTIVES: In this article the state of art the of prostate cancer (Pca) imaging and non-surgical salvage treatments (STs) is surveyed in order to explore the impact of imaging findings on the identification of radiorecurrent Pca after external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). METHODS: A computerised search was performed to identify all relevant studies in Medline up to 2012. Additional articles were extracted based on recommendations from an expert panel of authors. RESULTS: Definitive EBRT for Pca is increasingly used as treatment. After radiorecurrent Pca, non-surgical STs are emerging and shifting from investigational status to more established therapeutic options. Therefore, several scientific societies have published guidelines including clinical and imaging recommendations, even if the timing, efficacy and long-term toxicity of these STs have to be established. In some measure, accurately delineating the location and the extent of cancer is critical in selecting target lesions and in identifying patients who are candidates for STs. However, there is increasing awareness that anatomical approaches based on measurements of tumour size have substantial limitations, especially for tumours of unknown activity that persist or recur following irradiation CONCLUSIONS: To date, the main focus for innovations in imaging is the combination of excellence in anatomical resolution with specific biological correlates that depict metabolic processes and hallmarks at the tumour level. The emergence of new molecular markers could favour the development of methods that directly determine their presence, thereby improving tumour detection. KEY POINTS: Imaging may influence therapeutic decisions during non-surgical STs. MRI findings correlate with parametric maps derived from multiple functional techniques. Non-surgical salvage treatments allow local tumour control in patients with radiorecurrent PCa.
Authors: J C Chen; J A Moriarty; J A Derbyshire; R D Peters; J Trachtenberg; S D Bell; J Doyle; R Arrelano; G A Wright; R M Henkelman; R S Hinks; S Y Lok; A Toi; W Kucharczyk Journal: Radiology Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Claire McCann; J Carl Kumaradas; Mark R Gertner; Sean R H Davidson; Alfred M Dolan; Michael D Sherar Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2003-04-21 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Sheng Xu; Jochen Kruecker; Julia Locklin; Yuxi Pang; Marcelino Bernardo; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Pasquale Martino; Vincenzo Scattoni; Andrea B Galosi; Paolo Consonni; Carlo Trombetta; Silvano Palazzo; Carmen Maccagnano; Giovanni Liguori; Massimo Valentino; Michele Battaglia; Libero Barozzi Journal: World J Urol Date: 2011-05-08 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Oguz Akin; David H Gultekin; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Junting Zheng; Chaya Moskowitz; Xin Pei; Dahlia Sperling; Lawrence H Schwartz; Hedvig Hricak; Michael J Zelefsky Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-05-01 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Darko Pucar; Amita Shukla-Dave; Hedvig Hricak; Chaya S Moskowitz; Kentaro Kuroiwa; Semra Olgac; Lanie E Ebora; Peter T Scardino; Jason A Koutcher; Kristen L Zakian Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-06-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Albert Gelet; Jean Yves Chapelon; Laura Poissonnier; Raymonde Bouvier; Olivier Rouvière; Laura Curiel; Marc Janier; Guy Vallancien Journal: Urology Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: B J Krause; M Souvatzoglou; M Tuncel; K Herrmann; A K Buck; C Praus; T Schuster; H Geinitz; U Treiber; M Schwaiger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-09-22 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Giovanni L Gravina; Gravina Giovanni Luca; Claudio Festuccia; Pierluigi Bonfili; Mario Di Staso; Pietro Franzese; Valeria Ruggieri; Vladimir M Popov; Vincenzo Tombolini; Carlo Masciocchi; Eleonora Carosa; Andrea Lenzi; Emmanuele A Jannini; Ernesto Di Cesare Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2013-10-29 Impact factor: 3.411