Nicola L Robertson1, Evis Sala2, Matthias Benz2, Jonathan Landa2, Peter Scardino3, Howard I Scher4, Hedvig Hricak2, Hebert A Vargas2. 1. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. Electronic address: Robertn1@mskcc.org. 2. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 3. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 4. Genitourinary Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We report our initial experience with whole body and dedicated prostate magnetic resonance imaging as a single examination to assess local recurrence and metastatic disease in patients with suspected recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board approved, retrospective, single center study 76 consecutive patients with clinically suspected recurrent prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy underwent combined whole body and dedicated prostate magnetic resonance imaging at a single session from October 2014 to January 2016. Scans were evaluated to detect disease in the prostate bed and regional nodes, and at distant sites. Comparison was made to other imaging tests, and prostate bed, node and bone biopsies performed within 90 days. RESULTS: Whole body and dedicated prostate magnetic resonance imaging was completed successfully in all patients. Median prostate specific antigen was 0.36 ng/ml (range less than 0.05 to 56.12). Whole body and dedicated prostate magnetic resonance imaging identified suspected disease recurrence in 16 of 76 patients (21%), including local recurrence in the radical prostatectomy bed in 6, nodal metastases in 3, osseous metastases in 4 and multifocal metastatic disease in 3. In 43 patients at least 1 standard staging scan was done in addition to whole body and dedicated prostate magnetic resonance imaging. Concordance was demonstrated between the imaging modalities in 36 of 43 cases (84%). All metastatic lesions detected by other imaging tests were detected on magnetic resonance imaging. In addition, the magnetic resonance imaging modality detected osseous metastases in 4 patients with false-negative findings on other imaging tests, including 2 bone scans and 3 computerized tomography scans. It also excluded osseous disease in 1 patient with positive 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computerized tomography and subsequent negative bone biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Combined whole body and dedicated prostate magnetic resonance imaging is feasible in a clinical practice setting. It can provide incremental information compared to standard imaging in men with suspected prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy.
PURPOSE: We report our initial experience with whole body and dedicated prostate magnetic resonance imaging as a single examination to assess local recurrence and metastatic disease in patients with suspected recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board approved, retrospective, single center study 76 consecutive patients with clinically suspected recurrent prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy underwent combined whole body and dedicated prostate magnetic resonance imaging at a single session from October 2014 to January 2016. Scans were evaluated to detect disease in the prostate bed and regional nodes, and at distant sites. Comparison was made to other imaging tests, and prostate bed, node and bone biopsies performed within 90 days. RESULTS: Whole body and dedicated prostate magnetic resonance imaging was completed successfully in all patients. Median prostate specific antigen was 0.36 ng/ml (range less than 0.05 to 56.12). Whole body and dedicated prostate magnetic resonance imaging identified suspected disease recurrence in 16 of 76 patients (21%), including local recurrence in the radical prostatectomy bed in 6, nodal metastases in 3, osseous metastases in 4 and multifocal metastatic disease in 3. In 43 patients at least 1 standard staging scan was done in addition to whole body and dedicated prostate magnetic resonance imaging. Concordance was demonstrated between the imaging modalities in 36 of 43 cases (84%). All metastatic lesions detected by other imaging tests were detected on magnetic resonance imaging. In addition, the magnetic resonance imaging modality detected osseous metastases in 4 patients with false-negative findings on other imaging tests, including 2 bone scans and 3 computerized tomography scans. It also excluded osseous disease in 1 patient with positive 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computerized tomography and subsequent negative bone biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Combined whole body and dedicated prostate magnetic resonance imaging is feasible in a clinical practice setting. It can provide incremental information compared to standard imaging in men with suspected prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy.
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: Stephen J Freedland; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Leslie A Mangold; Mario Eisenberger; Frederick J Dorey; Patrick C Walsh; Alan W Partin Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-07-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Christopher J Kane; Christopher L Amling; Peter A S Johnstone; Nali Pak; Raymond S Lance; J Brantley Thrasher; John P Foley; Robert H Riffenburgh; Judd W Moul Journal: Urology Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Benedikt Kranzbühler; Hannes Nagel; Anton S Becker; Julian Müller; Martin Huellner; Paul Stolzmann; Urs Muehlematter; Matthias Guckenberger; Philipp A Kaufmann; Daniel Eberli; Irene A Burger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-10-14 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Min Yuen Teo; Matthew J O'Shaughnessy; Sean M McBride; Herbert A Vargas; Howard I Scher Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2017-10-17 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Sola Adeleke; Arash Latifoltojar; Harbir Sidhu; Myria Galazi; Taimur T Shah; Joey Clemente; Reena Davda; Heather Ann Payne; Manil D Chouhan; Maria Lioumi; Sue Chua; Alex Freeman; Manuel Rodriguez-Justo; Anthony Coolen; Sachin Vadgama; Steve Morris; Gary J Cook; Jamshed Bomanji; Manit Arya; Simon Chowdhury; Simon Wan; Athar Haroon; Tony Ng; Hashim Uddin Ahmed; Shonit Punwani Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 1.930
Authors: Christopher C Khoo; Saiful Miah; Martin J Connor; Joseph Tam; Mathias Winkler; Hashim U Ahmed; Taimur T Shah Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2020-06
Authors: Anthony Turpin; Edwina Girard; Clio Baillet; David Pasquier; Jonathan Olivier; Arnauld Villers; Philippe Puech; Nicolas Penel Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2020-01-31 Impact factor: 6.244