Francesco Greco1, Jeffrey A Cadeddu2, Inderbir S Gill3, Jihad H Kaouk4, Mesut Remzi5, R Houston Thompson6, Fijs W B van Leeuwen7, Henk G van der Poel8, Paolo Fornara9, Jens Rassweiler10. 1. Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Martin-Luther University, Halle an der Saale, Germany. Electronic address: francesco.greco@uk-halle.de. 2. Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. 3. USC Institute of Urology, Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. Glickman Urological & Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 5. Department of Urology, Landesklinikum Korneuburg, Korneuburg, Austria. 6. Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 7. Department of Radiology, Interventional Molecular Imaging Laboratory, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 9. Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Martin-Luther University, Halle an der Saale, Germany. 10. Department of Urology, SLK Kliniken Heilbronn, University of Heidelberg, Heilbronn, Germany.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Molecular imaging (MI) entails the visualisation, characterisation, and measurement of biologic processes at the molecular and cellular levels in humans and other living systems. Translating this technology to interventions in real-time enables interventional MI/image-guided surgery, for example, by providing better detection of tumours and their dimensions. OBJECTIVE: To summarise and critically analyse the available evidence on image-guided surgery for genitourinary (GU) oncologic diseases. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A comprehensive literature review was performed using PubMed and the Thomson Reuters Web of Science. In the free-text protocol, the following terms were applied: molecular imaging, genitourinary oncologic surgery, surgical navigation, image-guided surgery, and augmented reality. Review articles, editorials, commentaries, and letters to the editor were included if deemed to contain relevant information. We selected 79 articles according to the search strategy based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis criteria and the IDEAL method. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: MI techniques included optical imaging and fluorescent techniques, the augmented reality (AR) navigation system, magnetic resonance imaging spectroscopy, positron emission tomography, and single-photon emission computed tomography. Experimental studies on the AR navigation system were restricted to the detection and therapy of adrenal and renal malignancies and in the relatively infrequent cases of prostate cancer, whereas fluorescence techniques and optical imaging presented a wide application of intraoperative GU oncologic surgery. In most cases, image-guided surgery was shown to improve the surgical resectability of tumours. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the evidence to date, image-guided surgery has promise in the near future for multiple GU malignancies. Further optimisation of targeted imaging agents, along with the integration of imaging modalities, is necessary to further enhance intraoperative GU oncologic surgery.
CONTEXT: Molecular imaging (MI) entails the visualisation, characterisation, and measurement of biologic processes at the molecular and cellular levels in humans and other living systems. Translating this technology to interventions in real-time enables interventional MI/image-guided surgery, for example, by providing better detection of tumours and their dimensions. OBJECTIVE: To summarise and critically analyse the available evidence on image-guided surgery for genitourinary (GU) oncologic diseases. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A comprehensive literature review was performed using PubMed and the Thomson Reuters Web of Science. In the free-text protocol, the following terms were applied: molecular imaging, genitourinary oncologic surgery, surgical navigation, image-guided surgery, and augmented reality. Review articles, editorials, commentaries, and letters to the editor were included if deemed to contain relevant information. We selected 79 articles according to the search strategy based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis criteria and the IDEAL method. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: MI techniques included optical imaging and fluorescent techniques, the augmented reality (AR) navigation system, magnetic resonance imaging spectroscopy, positron emission tomography, and single-photon emission computed tomography. Experimental studies on the AR navigation system were restricted to the detection and therapy of adrenal and renal malignancies and in the relatively infrequent cases of prostate cancer, whereas fluorescence techniques and optical imaging presented a wide application of intraoperative GU oncologic surgery. In most cases, image-guided surgery was shown to improve the surgical resectability of tumours. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the evidence to date, image-guided surgery has promise in the near future for multiple GU malignancies. Further optimisation of targeted imaging agents, along with the integration of imaging modalities, is necessary to further enhance intraoperative GU oncologic surgery.
Authors: Eugene Shkolyar; Xiao Jia; Timothy C Chang; Dharati Trivedi; Kathleen E Mach; Max Q-H Meng; Lei Xing; Joseph C Liao Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2019-09-17 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: B E Schaafsma; F P R Verbeek; H W Elzevier; Q R J G Tummers; J R van der Vorst; J V Frangioni; C J H van de Velde; R C M Pelger; A L Vahrmeijer Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2014-08-11 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: William P Parker; Brian J Davis; Sean S Park; Kenneth R Olivier; Richard Choo; Mark A Nathan; Val J Lowe; Timothy J Welch; Jaden D Evans; William S Harmsen; Harras B Zaid; Ilya Sobol; Daniel M Moreira; Rimki Haloi; Matthew K Tollefson; Matthew T Gettman; Stephen A Boorjian; Lance A Mynderse; R Jeffrey Karnes; Eugene D Kwon Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-09-03 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: William P Parker; Jaden D Evans; Bradley J Stish; Sean S Park; Kenneth Olivier; Richard Choo; Mark A Nathan; Brian T Welch; R Jeffrey Karnes; Lance A Mynderse; Thomas M Pisansky; Eugene D Kwon; Val J Lowe; Brian J Davis Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-11-17 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: James Teh; Manisha Tripathi; Derek Reichel; Bien Sagong; Ricardo Montoya; Yi Zhang; Shawn Wagner; Rola Saouaf; Leland W K Chung; J Manuel Perez Journal: Nanotheranostics Date: 2021-01-01
Authors: Gijs H KleinJan; Nynke S van den Berg; Jeroen de Jong; Esther M Wit; Helene Thygessen; Erik Vegt; Henk G van der Poel; Fijs W B van Leeuwen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-01-15 Impact factor: 9.236