A Heidenreich1, S Krege. 1. Klinik für Urologie, Universitätsklinikum Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 5074, Aachen, Deutschland, aheidenreich@ukaachen.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Imaging studies are an integral and important diagnostic modality to stage, 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 routine. It is the aim of the current manuscript 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. RESULTS: Therapeutic response of soft tissue metastases is evaluated with the use of the RECIST criteria. In skeletal metastases, bone scans with validated algorithms must be performed to assess response. In patients with testicular germ cell tumors, computed tomography (CT) of the chest, the retroperitoneum, and the abdomen represents the standard imaging technique of choice usually performed prior to and at the end of systemic chemotherapy. Only in seminomas with residual tumors > 3 cm in diameter should FDG-PET/CT be performed about 6 weeks after chemotherapy. Metastatic renal cell carcinomas treated with molecular targeted therapies are routinely evaluated by CT scans at 3 month intervals. In specific cases, FDG-PET/CT is able to predict responses as early as 8 weeks after initiation of treatment. In patients with metastatic urothelial carcinomas, imaging studies should be performed after every second cycle of cytotoxic therapy. In patients with metastatic prostate cancer, the modality and the frequency of imaging studies depends on the type of the treatment. In men undergoing androgen deprivation therapy, no routine imaging studies are recommended except for patients with new onset symptoms or significant PSA progression prior to change of treatment. In men with metastatic castration-resistant PCA who are treated with cytotoxic regimes, routine imaging studies in the presence of decreasing or stable PSA serum concentrations are not indicated. In men treated with lyase inhibitor or inhibitors of the androgen receptor signaling cascade, imaging studies should be performed at 3 month intervals due to the low correlation of PSA serum concentrations with clinical response. CONCLUSIONS: Imaging studies to assess therapeutic response to systemic treatment in metastatic cancers of the urogenital tract must be chosen depending on the treatment regime, primary organ, and potential consequences of the findings. Routine imaging studies without specific clinical or therapeutic relevance are not justified.
BACKGROUND: Imaging studies are an integral and important diagnostic modality to stage, 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 routine. It is the aim of the current manuscript 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. RESULTS: Therapeutic response of soft tissue metastases is evaluated with the use of the RECIST criteria. In skeletal metastases, bone scans with validated algorithms must be performed to assess response. In patients with testicular germ cell tumors, computed tomography (CT) of the chest, the retroperitoneum, and the abdomen represents the standard imaging technique of choice usually performed prior to and at the end of systemic chemotherapy. Only in seminomas with residual tumors > 3 cm in diameter should FDG-PET/CT be performed about 6 weeks after chemotherapy. Metastatic renal cell carcinomas treated with molecular targeted therapies are routinely evaluated by CT scans at 3 month intervals. In specific cases, FDG-PET/CT is able to predict responses as early as 8 weeks after initiation of treatment. In patients with metastatic urothelial carcinomas, imaging studies should be performed after every second cycle of cytotoxic therapy. In patients with metastatic prostate cancer, the modality and the frequency of imaging studies depends on the type of the treatment. In men undergoing androgen deprivation therapy, no routine imaging studies are recommended except for patients with new onset symptoms or significant PSA progression prior to change of treatment. In men with metastatic castration-resistant PCA who are treated with cytotoxic regimes, routine imaging studies in the presence of decreasing or stable PSA serum concentrations are not indicated. In men treated with lyase inhibitor or inhibitors of the androgen receptor signaling cascade, imaging studies should be performed at 3 month intervals due to the low correlation of PSA serum concentrations with clinical response. CONCLUSIONS: Imaging studies to assess therapeutic response to systemic treatment in metastatic cancers of the urogenital tract must be chosen depending on the treatment regime, primary organ, and potential consequences of the findings. Routine imaging studies without specific clinical or therapeutic relevance are not justified.
Authors: Axel Heidenreich; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Steven Joniau; Malcolm Mason; Vsevolod Matveev; Nicolas Mottet; Hans-Peter Schmid; Theo van der Kwast; Thomas Wiegel; Filliberto Zattoni Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Howard I Scher; Karim Fizazi; Fred Saad; Mary-Ellen Taplin; Cora N Sternberg; Kurt Miller; Ronald de Wit; Peter Mulders; Kim N Chi; Neal D Shore; Andrew J Armstrong; Thomas W Flaig; Aude Fléchon; Paul Mainwaring; Mark Fleming; John D Hainsworth; Mohammad Hirmand; Bryan Selby; Lynn Seely; Johann S de Bono Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-08-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mohsen Beheshti; Reza Vali; Peter Waldenberger; Friedrich Fitz; Michael Nader; Wolfgang Loidl; Gabriele Broinger; Franz Stoiber; Ignac Foglman; Werner Langsteger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-05-09 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Susanne Krege; Jörg Beyer; Rainer Souchon; Peter Albers; Walter Albrecht; Ferran Algaba; Michael Bamberg; István Bodrogi; Carsten Bokemeyer; Eva Cavallin-Ståhl; Johannes Classen; Christoph Clemm; Gabriella Cohn-Cedermark; Stéphane Culine; Gedske Daugaard; Pieter H M De Mulder; Maria De Santis; Maike de Wit; Ronald de Wit; Hans Günter Derigs; Klaus-Peter Dieckmann; Annette Dieing; Jean-Pierre Droz; Martin Fenner; Karim Fizazi; Aude Flechon; Sophie D Fosså; Xavier Garcia del Muro; Thomas Gauler; Lajos Geczi; Arthur Gerl; Jose Ramon Germa-Lluch; Silke Gillessen; Jörg T Hartmann; Michael Hartmann; Axel Heidenreich; Wolfgang Hoeltl; Alan Horwich; Robert Huddart; Michael Jewett; Johnathan Joffe; William G Jones; László Kisbenedek; Olbjørn Klepp; Sabine Kliesch; Kai Uwe Koehrmann; Christian Kollmannsberger; Markus Kuczyk; Pilar Laguna; Oscar Leiva Galvis; Volker Loy; Malcolm D Mason; Graham M Mead; Rolf Mueller; Craig Nichols; Nicola Nicolai; Tim Oliver; Dalibor Ondrus; Gosse O N Oosterhof; Luis Paz-Ares; Giorgio Pizzocaro; Jörg Pont; Tobias Pottek; Tom Powles; Oliver Rick; Giovanni Rosti; Roberto Salvioni; Jutta Scheiderbauer; Hans-Ulrich Schmelz; Heinz Schmidberger; Hans-Joachim Schmoll; Mark Schrader; Felix Sedlmayer; Niels E Skakkebaek; Aslam Sohaib; Sergei Tjulandin; Padraig Warde; Stefan Weinknecht; Lothar Weissbach; Christian Wittekind; Eva Winter; Lori Wood; Hans von der Maase Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2007-12-26 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Howard I Scher; Susan Halabi; Ian Tannock; Michael Morris; Cora N Sternberg; Michael A Carducci; Mario A Eisenberger; Celestia Higano; Glenn J Bubley; Robert Dreicer; Daniel Petrylak; Philip Kantoff; Ethan Basch; William Kevin Kelly; William D Figg; Eric J Small; Tomasz M Beer; George Wilding; Alison Martin; Maha Hussain Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: I M E Desar; E G W ter Voert; Th Hambrock; J J A van Asten; D J van Spronsen; P F A Mulders; A Heerschap; W T A van der Graaf; H W M van Laarhoven; C M L van Herpen Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2012-01-12 Impact factor: 3.909