Anwar R Padhani1, Frederic E Lecouvet2, Nina Tunariu3, Dow-Mu Koh3, Frederik De Keyzer4, David J Collins3, Evis Sala5, Stefano Fanti6, H Alberto Vargas5, Giuseppe Petralia7, Heinz Peter Schlemmer8, Bertrand Tombal9, Johann de Bono10. 1. Paul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Hospital, Middlesex, UK. Electronic address: anwar.padhani@stricklandscanner.org.uk. 2. Department of Radiology, Centre du Cancer and Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium. 3. Cancer Research UK Cancer Imaging Centre, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Surrey, UK. 4. Department of Radiology, Medical Imaging Research Centre, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 5. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 6. Service of Nuclear Medicine, S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 7. Department of Radiology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy. 8. Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center Heidelberg (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 9. Department of Urology, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium. 10. Drug Development Unit, Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Marsden NHS Trust, Surrey, UK.
Abstract
CONTEXT: To effectively manage patients with advanced prostate cancer (APC), it is essential to have accurate, reproducible, and validated methods for detecting and quantifying the burden of bone and soft tissue metastases and for assessing their response to therapy. Current standard of care imaging with bone and computed tomography (CT) scans have significant limitations for the assessment of bone metastases in particular. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to undertake a critical comparative review of imaging methods used for diagnosis and disease monitoring of metastatic APC from the perspective of their availability and ability to assess disease presence, extent, and response of bone and soft tissue disease. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: An expert panel of radiologists, nuclear medicine physicians, and medical physicists with the greatest experience of imaging in advanced prostate cancer prepared a review of the practicalities, performance, merits, and limitations of currently available imaging methods. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Meta-analyses showed that positron emission tomography (PET)/CT with different radiotracers and whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) are more accurate for bone lesion detection than CT and bone scans (BSs). At a patient level, the pooled sensitivities for bone disease by using choline (CH)-PET/CT, WB-MRI, and BS were 91% (95% confidence interval [CI], 83-96%), 97% (95% CI, 91-99%), and 79% (95% CI, 73-83%), respectively. The pooled specificities for bone metastases detection using CH-PET/CT, WB-MRI, and BS were 99% (95% CI, 93-100%), 95% (95% CI, 90-97%), and 82% (95% CI, 78-85%), respectively. The ability of PET/CT and WB-MRI to assess therapeutic benefits is promising but has not been comprehensively evaluated. There is variability in the cost, availability, and quality of PET/CT and WB-MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Standardisation of acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of WB-MRI and PET/CT scans is required to assess the performance of these techniques in clinical trials of treatment approaches in APC. PATIENT SUMMARY: PET/CT and whole-body MRI scans have the potential to improve detection and to assess response to treatment of all states of advanced prostate cancer. Consensus recommendations on quality standards, interpretation, and reporting are needed but will require validation in clinical trials of established and new treatment approaches.
CONTEXT: To effectively manage patients with advanced prostate cancer (APC), it is essential to have accurate, reproducible, and validated methods for detecting and quantifying the burden of bone and soft tissue metastases and for assessing their response to therapy. Current standard of care imaging with bone and computed tomography (CT) scans have significant limitations for the assessment of bone metastases in particular. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to undertake a critical comparative review of imaging methods used for diagnosis and disease monitoring of metastatic APC from the perspective of their availability and ability to assess disease presence, extent, and response of bone and soft tissue disease. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: An expert panel of radiologists, nuclear medicine physicians, and medical physicists with the greatest experience of imaging in advanced prostate cancer prepared a review of the practicalities, performance, merits, and limitations of currently available imaging methods. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Meta-analyses showed that positron emission tomography (PET)/CT with different radiotracers and whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) are more accurate for bone lesion detection than CT and bone scans (BSs). At a patient level, the pooled sensitivities for bone disease by using choline (CH)-PET/CT, WB-MRI, and BS were 91% (95% confidence interval [CI], 83-96%), 97% (95% CI, 91-99%), and 79% (95% CI, 73-83%), respectively. The pooled specificities for bone metastases detection using CH-PET/CT, WB-MRI, and BS were 99% (95% CI, 93-100%), 95% (95% CI, 90-97%), and 82% (95% CI, 78-85%), respectively. The ability of PET/CT and WB-MRI to assess therapeutic benefits is promising but has not been comprehensively evaluated. There is variability in the cost, availability, and quality of PET/CT and WB-MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Standardisation of acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of WB-MRI and PET/CT scans is required to assess the performance of these techniques in clinical trials of treatment approaches in APC. PATIENT SUMMARY: PET/CT and whole-body MRI scans have the potential to improve detection and to assess response to treatment of all states of advanced prostate cancer. Consensus recommendations on quality standards, interpretation, and reporting are needed but will require validation in clinical trials of established and new treatment approaches.
Authors: Helle D Zacho; Julie B Nielsen; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Uwe Haberkorn; Nandita deSouza; Katja De Paepe; Katja Dettmann; Niels C Langkilde; Christian Haarmark; Rune V Fisker; Dennis T Arp; Jesper Carl; Jørgen B Jensen; Lars J Petersen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-06-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Amani Arthur; Edward W Johnston; Jessica M Winfield; Matthew D Blackledge; Robin L Jones; Paul H Huang; Christina Messiou Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Ivan de Kouchkovsky; Hsin-Yu Chen; Michael A Ohliger; Zhen J Wang; Robert A Bok; Jeremy W Gordon; Peder E Z Larson; Mary Frost; Kimberly Okamoto; Matthew R Cooperberg; John Kurhanewicz; Daniel B Vigneron; Rahul Aggarwal Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2021-11-07 Impact factor: 24.267
Authors: Andrei Fodor; Andrea Lancia; Francesco Ceci; Maria Picchio; Morten Hoyer; Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa; Piet Ost; Paolo Castellucci; Elena Incerti; Nadia Di Muzio; Gianluca Ingrosso Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-05-11 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Anna Barnes; Roberto Alonzi; Matthew Blackledge; Geoff Charles-Edwards; David J Collins; Gary Cook; Glynn Coutts; Vicky Goh; Martin Graves; Charles Kelly; Dow-Mu Koh; Hazel McCallum; Marc E Miquel; James O'Connor; Anwar Padhani; Rachel Pearson; Andrew Priest; Andrea Rockall; James Stirling; Stuart Taylor; Nina Tunariu; Jan van der Meulen; Darren Walls; Jessica Winfield; Shonit Punwani Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 3.039