Tobias Maurer1, Matthias Eiber2, Stefano Fanti3, Lars Budäus4, Valeria Panebianco5. 1. Department of Urology, Technische Universität München, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany. Electronic address: tobias.maurer@tum.de. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technische Universität München, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Policlinico S. Orsola, Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 4. Martini-Clinic Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 5. Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Correct identification of metastatic sites in recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) is of crucial importance because it leads to further treatment decisions. OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview on current imaging procedures and their performance in recurrent PCa. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Medline search via PubMed was performed with the keywords imaging, recurrent, and prostate cancer as well as more detailed searches including the keywords bone scan, bone scintigraphy, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography, PET, choline, FDG, prostate-specific membrane antigen, and PSMA, with emphasis on recent literature from 2010 to the present. Non-English published literature was excluded. Abstracts and full-text articles were reviewed and assessed for relevant content. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: In diagnostic imaging and particularly with newer technologies like positron emission tomography (PET), a profound lack of prospectively designed studies in recurrent PCa has to be noted. In most studies histologic validation has only been performed in a subset of patient cohorts. Heterogeneity of included patient cohorts, lack of standardized assessment, as well as diverging end points, hamper systematic comparison of different image modalities. Thus evidence for currently used imaging in recurrent PCa is only presented descriptively. CONCLUSIONS: Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as well as bone scintigraphy still represent the standard imaging for recurrent PCa; however, particularly for detection of local recurrence, multiparametric MRI is a valuable imaging modality. PET using choline and particularly tracers against prostate-specific membrane antigen might improve visualization of metastatic lesions. These findings need to be validated in prospective trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: Imaging of recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) is important to guide further treatment. Computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and bone scintigraphy represent the current standard. Positron emission tomography, especially with cancer-specific tracers, might improve imaging of recurrent PCa in the future.
CONTEXT: Correct identification of metastatic sites in recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) is of crucial importance because it leads to further treatment decisions. OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview on current imaging procedures and their performance in recurrent PCa. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Medline search via PubMed was performed with the keywords imaging, recurrent, and prostate cancer as well as more detailed searches including the keywords bone scan, bone scintigraphy, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography, PET, choline, FDG, prostate-specific membrane antigen, and PSMA, with emphasis on recent literature from 2010 to the present. Non-English published literature was excluded. Abstracts and full-text articles were reviewed and assessed for relevant content. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: In diagnostic imaging and particularly with newer technologies like positron emission tomography (PET), a profound lack of prospectively designed studies in recurrent PCa has to be noted. In most studies histologic validation has only been performed in a subset of patient cohorts. Heterogeneity of included patient cohorts, lack of standardized assessment, as well as diverging end points, hamper systematic comparison of different image modalities. Thus evidence for currently used imaging in recurrent PCa is only presented descriptively. CONCLUSIONS: Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as well as bone scintigraphy still represent the standard imaging for recurrent PCa; however, particularly for detection of local recurrence, multiparametric MRI is a valuable imaging modality. PET using choline and particularly tracers against prostate-specific membrane antigen might improve visualization of metastatic lesions. These findings need to be validated in prospective trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: Imaging of recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) is important to guide further treatment. Computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and bone scintigraphy represent the current standard. Positron emission tomography, especially with cancer-specific tracers, might improve imaging of recurrent PCa in the future.
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: Francesco Paparo; Alice Peirano; João Matos; Lorenzo Bacigalupo; Umberto Rossi; Ilaria Mussetto; Gianluca Bottoni; Martina Ugolini; Carlo Introini; Filippo Grillo Ruggieri; Gian Andrea Rollandi; Arnoldo Piccardo Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2020-11
Authors: Oladunni Akin-Akintayo; Funmilayo Tade; Pardeep Mittal; Courtney Moreno; Peter T Nieh; Peter Rossi; Dattatraya Patil; Raghuveer Halkar; Baowei Fei; Viraj Master; Ashesh B Jani; Hiroumi Kitajima; Adeboye O Osunkoya; Claudia Ormenisan-Gherasim; Mark M Goodman; David M Schuster Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2018-02-24 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: David G Calatayud; Sotia Neophytou; Eleni Nicodemou; S Giuseppe Giuffrida; Haobo Ge; Sofia I Pascu Journal: Front Chem Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 5.545
Authors: Robert M Hicks; Jeffry P Simko; Antonio C Westphalen; Hao G Nguyen; Kirsten L Greene; Li Zhang; Peter R Carroll; Thomas A Hope Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-09-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Fernando S M Monteiro; Fabio A Schutz; Igor A P Morbeck; Diogo A Bastos; Fernando V de Padua; Leonardo A G A Costa; Manuel C Maia; Jose A Rinck; Stenio de Cassio Zequi; Karine M da Trindade; Wladimir Alfer; William C Nahas; Lucas V Dos Santos; Robson Ferrigno; Diogo A R da Rosa; Juan P Sade; Francisco J Orlandi; Fernando N G de Oliveira; Andrey Soares Journal: JCO Glob Oncol Date: 2021-04
Authors: Marieke J Krimphove; Lena H Theissen; Alexander P Cole; Felix Preisser; Philipp C Mandel; Felix K H Chun Journal: World J Mens Health Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 5.400