PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Focal therapy for prostate cancer is emerging as a management option between active surveillance and radical treatments. In this article, we present two of the most important imaging modalities in focal therapy, multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and ultrasonography. We review the recent advances within these two platforms. RECENT FINDINGS: State-of-the-art imaging in all phases of focal therapy is essential for treatment safety. In patient selection, treatment guidance, and follow-up, different aspects of imaging are important. mpMRI is an imaging technology with high imaging resolution and contrast. This makes it an excellent technology for patient selection and treatment planning and follow-up. Ultrasound has the unique property of real-time image acquisition. This makes it an excellent technology for real-time treatment guidance. There are multiple novelties in these two platforms that have increased the accuracy considerably. Examples in ultrasound are contrast-enhanced ultrasonography, elastography, shear-wave elastography, and histoscanning. In mpMRI, these advantages consist of multiple sequences combined to one image and magnetic resonance thermometry. SUMMARY: Standardization of multiparametric transrectal ultrasound and mpMRI is of paramount importance. For targeted treatment and follow-up, a good negative predictive value of the test is important. There is much to gain from both of these developing fields and imaging accuracy of the two platforms is comparable. Standardization in conduct and interpretation, three-dimensional reconstruction, and fusion of the two platforms can make focal therapy the standard of care for prostate cancer.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Focal therapy for prostate cancer is emerging as a management option between active surveillance and radical treatments. In this article, we present two of the most important imaging modalities in focal therapy, multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and ultrasonography. We review the recent advances within these two platforms. RECENT FINDINGS: State-of-the-art imaging in all phases of focal therapy is essential for treatment safety. In patient selection, treatment guidance, and follow-up, different aspects of imaging are important. mpMRI is an imaging technology with high imaging resolution and contrast. This makes it an excellent technology for patient selection and treatment planning and follow-up. Ultrasound has the unique property of real-time image acquisition. This makes it an excellent technology for real-time treatment guidance. There are multiple novelties in these two platforms that have increased the accuracy considerably. Examples in ultrasound are contrast-enhanced ultrasonography, elastography, shear-wave elastography, and histoscanning. In mpMRI, these advantages consist of multiple sequences combined to one image and magnetic resonance thermometry. SUMMARY: Standardization of multiparametric transrectal ultrasound and mpMRI is of paramount importance. For targeted treatment and follow-up, a good negative predictive value of the test is important. There is much to gain from both of these developing fields and imaging accuracy of the two platforms is comparable. Standardization in conduct and interpretation, three-dimensional reconstruction, and fusion of the two platforms can make focal therapy the standard of care for prostate cancer.
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: Hari Trivedi; Baris Turkbey; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Compton J Benjamin; Marcelino Bernardo; Thomas Pohida; Vijay Shah; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; W Marston Linehan; Aradhana M Venkatesan; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: Urology Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Ari Partanen; Nitin K Yerram; Hari Trivedi; Matthew R Dreher; Juha Oila; Anthony N Hoang; Dmitry Volkin; Jeffrey Nix; Baris Turkbey; Marcelino Bernardo; Diana C Haines; Compton J Benjamin; W Marston Linehan; Peter Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Gösta J Ehnholm; Aradhana M Venkatesan; Peter A Pinto Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-06-07 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Thiele Kobus; Andreas K Bitz; Mark J van Uden; Miriam W Lagemaat; Eva Rothgang; Stephan Orzada; Arend Heerschap; Tom W J Scheenen Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-02-24 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Sandeep Sankineni; Arvin K George; Anna M Brown; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Abdom Imaging Date: 2015-10
Authors: Michael F Tweedle; Haiming Ding; William T Drost; Joshua Dowell; James Spain; Mathew Joseph; Said M Elshafae; Maria-Isabela Menendez; Li Gong; Shankaran Kothandaraman; Wessel P Dirksen; Chadwick L Wright; Robert Bahnson; Michael V Knopp; Thomas J Rosol Journal: Prostate Date: 2018-07-11 Impact factor: 4.104