Yasin Bhanji1, Steven P Rowe1,2, Christian P Pavlovich3. 1. The Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. 2. The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. 3. The Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. cpavlov2@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To discuss the potential utility of newer imaging modalities including micro-ultrasound and PSMA-PET for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, technologies that may gain roles as adjuncts to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in the active surveillance (AS) setting. METHODS: Narrative review of two new imaging modalities used for primary prostate cancer through April 2021. A targeted search was performed to identify current relevant literature on the role of new imaging modalities for primary prostate cancer using search terms "micro-ultrasound," "molecular imaging," "prostate cancer," "active surveillance," "multiparametric MRI," "PI-RADS," "PRI-MUS," and "detection rate." In addition, references of included articles were screened for further relevant publications. RESULTS: Micro-ultrasound (micro-US) and prostate-specific membrane antigen-positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) are increasing in their use and applicability to prostate cancer imaging. Micro-US is used for cancer detection and may identify higher grade cancers more accurately than conventional ultrasound, despite technical hurdles in its initial launch. PSMA-PET is highly sensitive and specific for high-grade and metastatic prostate cancer, though costly and not easily available. Though data are sparse, it may have an emerging role in cancer diagnosis in select localized cases, and in some men considering (or currently on) AS who have indications of more aggressive disease. CONCLUSION: There are very limited data on micro-US and PSMA-PET in AS patients. However, given the ability of these modalities to identify high-grade cancer, their judicious use in AS patients may be of utility in the future.
PURPOSE: To discuss the potential utility of newer imaging modalities including micro-ultrasound and PSMA-PET for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, technologies that may gain roles as adjuncts to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in the active surveillance (AS) setting. METHODS: Narrative review of two new imaging modalities used for primary prostate cancer through April 2021. A targeted search was performed to identify current relevant literature on the role of new imaging modalities for primary prostate cancer using search terms "micro-ultrasound," "molecular imaging," "prostate cancer," "active surveillance," "multiparametric MRI," "PI-RADS," "PRI-MUS," and "detection rate." In addition, references of included articles were screened for further relevant publications. RESULTS: Micro-ultrasound (micro-US) and prostate-specific membrane antigen-positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) are increasing in their use and applicability to prostate cancer imaging. Micro-US is used for cancer detection and may identify higher grade cancers more accurately than conventional ultrasound, despite technical hurdles in its initial launch. PSMA-PET is highly sensitive and specific for high-grade and metastatic prostate cancer, though costly and not easily available. Though data are sparse, it may have an emerging role in cancer diagnosis in select localized cases, and in some men considering (or currently on) AS who have indications of more aggressive disease. CONCLUSION: There are very limited data on micro-US and PSMA-PET in AS patients. However, given the ability of these modalities to identify high-grade cancer, their judicious use in AS patients may be of utility in the future.
Authors: Michael A Gorin; Steven P Rowe; Hiten D Patel; Igor Vidal; Margarita Mana-Ay; Mehrbod S Javadi; Lilja B Solnes; Ashley E Ross; Edward M Schaeffer; Trinity J Bivalacqua; Alan W Partin; Kenneth J Pienta; Zsolt Szabo; Angelo M De Marzo; Martin G Pomper; Mohamad E Allaf Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Giovanni Lughezzani; Davide Maffei; Alberto Saita; Marco Paciotti; Pietro Diana; Nicolò Maria Buffi; Piergiuseppe Colombo; Grazia Maria Elefante; Rodolfo Hurle; Massimo Lazzeri; Giorgio Guazzoni; Paolo Casale Journal: Eur Urol Focus Date: 2020-10-15
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: Hashim U Ahmed; Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily; Louise C Brown; Rhian Gabe; Richard Kaplan; Mahesh K Parmar; Yolanda Collaco-Moraes; Katie Ward; Richard G Hindley; Alex Freeman; Alex P Kirkham; Robert Oldroyd; Chris Parker; Mark Emberton Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Pietro Pepe; Marco Roscigno; Ludovica Pepe; Paolo Panella; Marinella Tamburo; Giulia Marletta; Francesco Savoca; Giuseppe Candiano; Sebastiano Cosentino; Massimo Ippolito; Andreas Tsirgiotis; Michele Pennisi Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 4.964