Edouard J Trabulsi1, R Bryan Rumble2, Hossein Jadvar3, Thomas Hope4, Martin Pomper5, Baris Turkbey6, Andrew B Rosenkrantz7, Sadhna Verma8, Daniel J Margolis9, Adam Froemming10, Aytekin Oto11, Andrei Purysko12, Matthew I Milowsky13, Heinz-Peter Schlemmer14, Matthias Eiber15, Michael J Morris16, Peter L Choyke6, Anwar Padhani17, Jorge Oldan13, Stefano Fanti18, Suneil Jain19, Peter A Pinto6, Kirk A Keegan20, Christopher R Porter21, Jonathan A Coleman16, Glenn S Bauman22, Ashesh B Jani23, Jeffrey M Kamradt24, Westley Sholes1, H Alberto Vargas16. 1. Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA. 2. American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA. 3. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. 4. University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 5. Johns Hopkins Medicine, Owings Mills, MD. 6. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD. 7. NYU Langone Health, New York, NY. 8. University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH. 9. David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA. 10. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 11. The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. 12. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH. 13. UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC. 14. German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 15. Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany. 16. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 17. Paul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, United Kingdom. 18. University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 19. Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland. 20. Vanderbilt Urologic Surgery, Nashville, TN. 21. Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA. 22. London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada. 23. Winship Cancer Institute, Atlanta, GA. 24. Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Provide evidence- and expert-based recommendations for optimal use of imaging in advanced prostate cancer. Due to increases in research and utilization of novel imaging for advanced prostate cancer, this guideline is intended to outline techniques available and provide recommendations on appropriate use of imaging for specified patient subgroups. METHODS: An Expert Panel was convened with members from ASCO and the Society of Abdominal Radiology, American College of Radiology, Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, American Urological Association, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Urologic Oncology to conduct a systematic review of the literature and develop an evidence-based guideline on the optimal use of imaging for advanced prostate cancer. Representative index cases of various prostate cancer disease states are presented, including suspected high-risk disease, newly diagnosed treatment-naïve metastatic disease, suspected recurrent disease after local treatment, and progressive disease while undergoing systemic treatment. A systematic review of the literature from 2013 to August 2018 identified fully published English-language systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses, reports of rigorously conducted phase III randomized controlled trials that compared ≥ 2 imaging modalities, and noncomparative studies that reported on the efficacy of a single imaging modality. RESULTS: A total of 35 studies met inclusion criteria and form the evidence base, including 17 systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis and 18 primary research articles. RECOMMENDATIONS: One or more of these imaging modalities should be used for patients with advanced prostate cancer: conventional imaging (defined as computed tomography [CT], bone scan, and/or prostate magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) and/or next-generation imaging (NGI), positron emission tomography [PET], PET/CT, PET/MRI, or whole-body MRI) according to the clinical scenario.
PURPOSE: Provide evidence- and expert-based recommendations for optimal use of imaging in advanced prostate cancer. Due to increases in research and utilization of novel imaging for advanced prostate cancer, this guideline is intended to outline techniques available and provide recommendations on appropriate use of imaging for specified patient subgroups. METHODS: An Expert Panel was convened with members from ASCO and the Society of Abdominal Radiology, American College of Radiology, Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, American Urological Association, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Urologic Oncology to conduct a systematic review of the literature and develop an evidence-based guideline on the optimal use of imaging for advanced prostate cancer. Representative index cases of various prostate cancer disease states are presented, including suspected high-risk disease, newly diagnosed treatment-naïve metastatic disease, suspected recurrent disease after local treatment, and progressive disease while undergoing systemic treatment. A systematic review of the literature from 2013 to August 2018 identified fully published English-language systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses, reports of rigorously conducted phase III randomized controlled trials that compared ≥ 2 imaging modalities, and noncomparative studies that reported on the efficacy of a single imaging modality. RESULTS: A total of 35 studies met inclusion criteria and form the evidence base, including 17 systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis and 18 primary research articles. RECOMMENDATIONS: One or more of these imaging modalities should be used for patients with advanced prostate cancer: conventional imaging (defined as computed tomography [CT], bone scan, and/or prostate magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) and/or next-generation imaging (NGI), positron emission tomography [PET], PET/CT, PET/MRI, or whole-body MRI) according to the clinical scenario.
Authors: Divya Yadav; Hyunsoo Hwang; Wei Qiao; Rituraj Upadhyay; Brian F Chapin; Chad Tang; Ana Aparicio; Maria A Lopez-Olivo; Stella K Kang; Homer A Macapinlac; Tharakeswara K Bathala; Devaki Shilpa Surasi Journal: Radiol Imaging Cancer Date: 2022-03
Authors: Sungmin Woo; Chong Hyun Suh; Andreas G Wibmer; Anton S Becker; Min Yuen Teo; Mithat Gönen; Hedvig Hricak; Howard I Scher; Michael J Morris; Hebert Alberto Vargas Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2021-11-15 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Elisa Perry; Arpit Talwar; Kim Taubman; Michael Ng; Lih-Ming Wong; Russell Booth; Tom R Sutherland Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-01-05 Impact factor: 9.236