PURPOSE: Accurate identification of the source of a detectable serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in the postprostatectomy setting is a major challenge among the urologic community. The aim of this study was to assess positivity rates of imaging examinations performed in patients with early PSA rise after prostatectomy and to summarize the management strategies adopted in this clinical scenario. METHODS: Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective study of 142 postprostatectomy patients with PSA rise up to 1ng/ml who underwent evaluation with combination of multiparametric pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)±whole-body or bone MRI, bone scintigraphy, computed tomography (CT) chest-abdomen-pelvis, 18F-fludeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (PET)/CT or 18F-sodium fluoride-PET/CT at a single tertiary cancer center. Imaging results were summarized per modality and compared with pathology findings. RESULTS: Pelvic MRI was positive in 15/142 (11%) patients (14 patients with local recurrence in the surgical bed and 1 patient with pelvic osseous metastases). Of these 15, 10 patients underwent additional imaging examinations; none revealed positive findings. Of the 127 patients with negative pelvic MRI, 54 (43%) underwent additional imaging examinations; only 1/54 had positive findings (false-positive T8 lesion on bone scintigraphy and FDG-PET/CT; biopsy was negative for cancer). Overall, 12/16 patients with positive imaging findings and 75/126 (60%) patients with negative imaging received treatment (radiation, hormones or chemotherapy). CONCLUSION: The conventional imaging identified sites of disease, almost always in the form of local recurrence, in a minority of patients with early PSA rise postprostatectomy.
PURPOSE: Accurate identification of the source of a detectable serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in the postprostatectomy setting is a major challenge among the urologic community. The aim of this study was to assess positivity rates of imaging examinations performed in patients with early PSA rise after prostatectomy and to summarize the management strategies adopted in this clinical scenario. METHODS: Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective study of 142 postprostatectomy patients with PSA rise up to 1ng/ml who underwent evaluation with combination of multiparametric pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)±whole-body or bone MRI, bone scintigraphy, computed tomography (CT) chest-abdomen-pelvis, 18F-fludeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (PET)/CT or 18F-sodium fluoride-PET/CT at a single tertiary cancer center. Imaging results were summarized per modality and compared with pathology findings. RESULTS: Pelvic MRI was positive in 15/142 (11%) patients (14 patients with local recurrence in the surgical bed and 1 patient with pelvic osseous metastases). Of these 15, 10 patients underwent additional imaging examinations; none revealed positive findings. Of the 127 patients with negative pelvic MRI, 54 (43%) underwent additional imaging examinations; only 1/54 had positive findings (false-positive T8 lesion on bone scintigraphy and FDG-PET/CT; biopsy was negative for cancer). Overall, 12/16 patients with positive imaging findings and 75/126 (60%) patients with negative imaging received treatment (radiation, hormones or chemotherapy). CONCLUSION: The conventional imaging identified sites of disease, almost always in the form of local recurrence, in a minority of patients with early PSA rise postprostatectomy.
Authors: Daniel A Barocas; Mark E Bensink; Kristin Berry; Zahra Musa; Carolyn Bodnar; Robert Dann; Scott D Ramsey Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2014-11-17 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: Ivan Jambor; Anna Kuisma; Susan Ramadan; Riikka Huovinen; Minna Sandell; Sami Kajander; Jukka Kemppainen; Esa Kauppila; Joakim Auren; Harri Merisaari; Jani Saunavaara; Tommi Noponen; Heikki Minn; Hannu J Aronen; Marko Seppänen Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2015-04-02 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: David M Schuster; John R Votaw; Peter T Nieh; Weiping Yu; Jonathon A Nye; Viraj Master; F DuBois Bowman; Muta M Issa; Mark M Goodman Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: D M Moreira; M R Cooperberg; L E Howard; W J Aronson; C J Kane; M K Terris; C L Amling; M Kuchibhatla; S J Freedland Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2014-01-14 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Vasiliki Pasoglou; Nicolas Michoux; Frank Peeters; Ahmed Larbi; Bertrand Tombal; Tom Selleslagh; Patrick Omoumi; Bruno C Vande Berg; Frédéric E Lecouvet Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-12-15 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Henk G van der Poel; Corinne Tillier; Willem de Blok; Cenk Acar; Erik H A M van Muilekom Journal: Urology Date: 2013-08-22 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Verane Achard; Giorgio Lamanna; Antoine Denis; Thomas De Perrot; Ismini Charis Mainta; Osman Ratib; Christophe Iselin; Raymond Miralbell; Valentina Garibotto; Thomas Zilli Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2019-06-12 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: Robert T Dess; Todd M Morgan; Paul L Nguyen; Rohit Mehra; Howard M Sandler; Felix Y Feng; Daniel E Spratt Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 3.092
Authors: Lars J Petersen; Julie B Nielsen; Katja Dettmann; Rune V Fisker; Uwe Haberkorn; Louise Stenholt; Helle D Zacho Journal: Mol Clin Oncol Date: 2017-05-31
Authors: Lino M Sawicki; Julian Kirchner; Carolin Buddensieck; Christina Antke; Tim Ullrich; Lars Schimmöller; Johannes Boos; Christoph Schleich; Benedikt M Schaarschmidt; Christian Buchbender; Philipp Heusch; Robert Rabenalt; Peter Albers; Gerald Antoch; Hans-Wilhelm Müller; Hubertus Hautzel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-03-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Andreas G Wibmer; Michael J Morris; Mithat Gonen; Junting Zheng; Hedvig Hricak; Steven Larson; Howard I Scher; Hebert Alberto Vargas Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-01-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Laure Michaud; Karim A Touijer; Audrey Mauguen; Michael J Zelefsky; Michael J Morris; Serge K Lyashschenko; Jeremy C Durack; John L Humm; Wolfgang A Weber; Heiko Schöder Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-12-20 Impact factor: 11.082