Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 88, No. 2, 2012
Issue release date: March 2012
Section title: Review
Free Access
Urol Int 2012;88:125–136
(DOI:10.1159/000335205)

Imaging in Prostate Cancer Staging: Present Role and Future Perspectives

Pinto F.a · Totaro A.a · Palermo G.a · Calarco A.a · Sacco E.a · D’Addessi A.a · Racioppi M.a · Valentini A.L.b · Gui B.b · Bassi P.F.a
aDepartment of Urology and bDepartment of Bioimaging and Radiological Sciences, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
email Corresponding Author

Abstract

Despite recent improvements in detection and treatment, prostate cancer continues to be the most common malignancy and the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality. Thus, although survival rate continues to improve, prostate cancer remains a compelling medical health problem. The major goal of prostate cancer imaging in the next decade will be more accurate disease characterization through the synthesis of anatomic, functional, and molecular imaging information in order to plan the most appropriate therapeutic strategy. No consensus exists regarding the use of imaging for evaluating primary prostate cancer. However, conventional and functional imaging are expanding their role in detection and local staging and, moreover, functional imaging is becoming of great importance in oncologic management and monitoring of therapy response. This review presents a multidisciplinary perspective on the role of conventional and functional imaging methods in prostate cancer staging.

© 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel


  

Key Words

  • Prostate cancer
  • Staging
  • MRI
  • Diffusion-weighted MRI
  • Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI
  • Magnetic resonance spectroscopy
  • Prostate ultrasonography imaging
  • Positron emission tomography

References

  1. Farlay J, Parkin DM, Steliarova-Foucher E: Estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2008. Eur J Cancer 2010;46:765–781.

    External Resources

  2. SEER Stat Fact Sheets: prostate. Available at http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html 2010.
  3. Hanley JA: Mortality reductions produced by sustained prostate cancer screening have been understimated. J Med Screen 2010;17:147–151.

    External Resources

  4. Silverberg E, Boring CC, Squires TS: Cancer statistics, 1990. CA Cancer J Clin 1990;40:9–26.
  5. Jemal A, Murray T, Ward E, et al: Cancer statistics, 2005. CA Cancer J Clin 2005;55:10–30; published correction in CA Cancer J Clin 2005;55:259.
  6. Soh S, Kattan MW, Berkman S, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT: Has there been a recent shift in the pathological features and prognosis of patients with radical prostatectomy? J Urol 1997;157:2212–2218.
  7. Lindner U, Trachtenberg J, Lawrentschuk N: Focal therapy in prostate cancer: modalities, findings and future considerations. Nat Rev Urol 2010;7:562–571.

    External Resources

  8. Cooperberg MR, Lubeck DP, Grossfeld GD, Mehta SS, Carroll PR: Contemporary trends in imaging test utilization for prostate cancer staging: data from the cancer of the prostate strategic urologic research endeavor. J Urol 2002;168:491–495.
  9. Turkbey B, Albert PS, Kurdzie K, Choyke P: Imaging localized prostate cancer: current approaches and new developments. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192:1471–1480

    External Resources

  10. Green FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al: AJCC cancer staging manual. New York, Springer, 2002.
  11. Amis ES Jr, Bigongiari LR, Bluth EI, et al: Pretreatment staging of clinically localized prostate cancer. Radiology 2000;215:703–708.
  12. Carroll P, Coley C, McLeod D, et al: Prostate-specific antigen best practice policy. II. Prostate cancer staging and post-treatment follow-up. Urology 2001;57:225–229.
  13. Ukimura O, Troncoso P, Ramirez EI, et al: Prostate cancer staging: correlation between ultrasound determined tumor contact length and pathologically confirmed extraprostatic extension. J Urol 1998;159:1251–1259.
  14. Ravizzini G, Turkbey B, Kurdziel K, Choyke PL: New horizons in prostate cancer imaging. Eur J Radiol 2009;70:212–226.

    External Resources

  15. Ohori M, Egawa S, Shinohara K, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT: Detection of microscopic extracapsular extension prior to radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Br J Urol 1994;74:72–79.
  16. Fütterer JJ, Barentsz J, Heijmijnk ST: Imaging modalities for prostate cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2009;9:923–937.

    External Resources

  17. Ukimura O: Evolution of precise and multimodal MRI and TRUS in detection and management of early prostate cancer. Expert Rev Med Devices 2010;7:541–554.

    External Resources

  18. Sauvain JL, Palascak P, Bourscheid D, et al: Value of power Doppler and 3D vascular sonography as a method for diagnosis and staging prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2003;44:21–30.
  19. Ellegala DB, Leong-Poi H, Carpenter JE, et al: Imaging tumor angiogenesis with contrast ultrasound and microbubbles targeted to alpha(v)beta3. Circulation 2003;108:336–341.
  20. Aigner F, Mitterberger M, Rehder P, et al: Status of transrectal ultrasound imaging of the prostate. J Endourol 2010;24:685–691.

    External Resources

  21. Ohori M, Shinohara K, Wheeler TM, et al: Ultrasonic detection of non-palpable seminal vesicle invasion: a clinicopathological study. Br J Urol 1993;72:799–808.
  22. Scardino PT, Shinohara K, Wheeler TM, Carter SS: Staging of prostate cancer: value of ultrasonography. Urol Clin North Am 1989;16:713–734.
  23. Walsh JW, Amendola MA, Konerding KF, Tisnado J, Hazra TA: Computed tomographic detection of pelvic and inguinal lymph-node metastases from primary and recurrent pelvic malignant disease. Radiology 1980;137:157–166.
  24. Tarcan T, Turkeri L, Biren T, Kullu S, Gurmen N, Akdas A: The effectiveness of imaging modalities in clinical staging of localized prostate cancer. Int Urol Nephrol 1996;28:773–779.
  25. Yu KK, Hricak H: Imaging prostate cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 2000;38:59–85.
  26. Burcombe RJ, Ostler PJ, Ayoub AW, Hoskin PJ: The role of staging CT scans in the treatment of prostate cancer: a retrospective audit. Clin Oncol 2000;12:32–35.
  27. Schnall MD, Pollack HM: Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate gland. Urol Radiol 1990;12:109–114.
  28. Zakian KL, Eberhardt S, Hricak H, et al: Transition zone prostate cancer: metabolic characteristics at 1H MR spectroscopic imaging – initial results. Radiology 2003;229:241–247.
  29. Akin O, Sala E, Moskowitz CS, et al: Transition zone prostate cancers: features, detection, localization, and staging at endorectal MR imaging. Radiology 2006;239:784–792.

    External Resources

  30. Sala E, Akin O, Moskowitz CS, et al: Endorectal MR imaging in the evaluation of seminal vesicle invasion: diagnostic accuracy and multivariate feature analysis. Radiology 2006;238:929–937.

    External Resources

  31. Yu KK, Hricak H, Alagappan R, Chernoff DM, Bacchetti P, Zaloudek CJ: Detection of extracapsular extension of prostate carcinoma with endorectal and phased-array coil MR imaging: multivariate feature analysis. Radiology 1997;202:697–702.
  32. Yu KK, Scheidler J, Hricak H, et al: Prostate cancer: prediction of extracapsular extension with endorectal MR imaging and three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 1999;213:481–488.
  33. Outwater EK, Petersen RO, Siegelman ES, Gomella LG, Chernesky CE, Mitchell DG: Prostate carcinoma: assessment of diagnostic criteria for capsular penetration on endorectal coil MR images. Radiology 1994;193:333–339.
  34. Bartolozzi C, Menchi I, Lencioni R, et al: Local staging of prostate carcinoma with endorectal coil MRI: correlation with whole-mount radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Radiol 1996;6:339–345.
  35. Cornud F, Flam T, Chauveinc L, et al: Extraprostatic spread of clinically localized prostate cancer: factors predictive of pT3 tumor and of positive endorectal MR imaging examination results. Radiology 2002;224:203–210.
  36. Ikonen S, Karkkainen P, Kivisaari L, et al: Magnetic resonance imaging of clinically localized prostatic cancer. J Urol 1998;159:915–919.
  37. Ikonen S, Karkkainen P, Kivisaari L, et al: Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging of prostatic cancer: comparison between fat-suppressed T2-weighted fast spin echo and three-dimensional dual-echo, steady-state sequences. Eur Radiol 2001;11:236–241.
  38. May F, Treumann T, Dettmar P, Hartung R, Breul J: Limited value of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasonography in the staging of clinically localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2001;87:66–69.
  39. Perrotti M, Kaufman RP Jr, Jennings TA, et al: Endo-rectal coil magnetic resonance imaging in clinically localized prostate cancer: is it accurate? J Urol 1996;156:106–109.
  40. Presti JC, Hricak H, Narayan PA, Shinohara K, White S, Carroll PR: Local staging of prostatic carcinoma: comparison of transrectal sonography and endorectal MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;166:103–108.
  41. Rorvik J, Halvorsen OJ, Albrektsen G, Ersland L, Daehlin L, Haukaas S: MRI with an endorectal coil for staging of clinically localised prostate cancer prior to radical prostatectomy. Eur Radiol 1999;9:29–34.
  42. Schiebler ML, Yankaskas BC, Tempany C, et al: MR imaging in adenocarcinoma of the prostate: interobserver variation and efficacy for determining stage C disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992;158:559–562.
  43. Mullerad M, Hricak H, Wang L, Chen HN, Kattan MW, Scardino PT: Prostate cancer: detection of extracapsular extension by genitourinary and general body radiologists at MR imaging. Radiology 2004;232:140–146.

    External Resources

  44. Wang L, Mullerad M, Chen HN, et al: Prostate cancer: incremental value of endorectal MR imaging findings for prediction of extracapsular extension. Radiology 2004;232:133–139.

    External Resources

  45. Brajtbord JS, Lavery HJ, Nabizada-Pace F, Senaratne P, Samadi DB: Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging has limited clinical ability to preoperatively predict pT3 prostate cancer. BJU Int 2011;107:1419–1424.

    External Resources

  46. Lee SH, Park KK, Choi KH, et al: Is endorectal coil necessary for the staging of clinically localized prostate cancer? Comparison of non-endorectal versus endorectal MR imaging. World J Urol 2010;28:667–672.

    External Resources

  47. Nogueira L, Wang L, Fine SW et al: Focal treatment or observation of prostate cancer: pretreatment accuracy of transrectal ultrasound biopsy and T2-weighted MRI. Urology 2010;75:472–477.

    External Resources

  48. Wang L, Hricak H, Kattan MW, Chen HN, Scardino PT, Kuroiwa K: Prediction of organ confined prostate cancer: incremental value of MRI and MRI spectroscopic imaging to staging nomograms. Radiology 2006;238:597–603.

    External Resources

  49. Lavery HJ, Brajtbord JS, Levinson AW, Nabizada-Pace F, Pollard ME, Samadi DB: Unnecessary imaging for the staging of low-risk prostate cancer is common. Urology 2011;77:274–278.

    External Resources

  50. Costello LC, Franklin RB, Feng P: Mitochondrial function, zinc, and intermediary metabolism relationships in normal prostate and prostate cancer. Mitochondrion 2005;5:143–153.
  51. Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron DB: Advances in MR spectroscopy of the prostate. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2008;16:697–710.

    External Resources

  52. Pinto F, Totaro A, Calarco A: Imaging in prostate cancer diagnosis: present role and future perspectives. Urol Int 2011;86:373–382.
  53. Scheidler J, Hricak H, Vigneron DB, et al: Prostate cancer: localization with three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging – clinicopathologic study. Radiology 1999;213:473–480.
  54. Nayyar R, Kumar R, Kumar V, Jagannathan NR, Gupta NP, Hemal AK: Magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging: current status in the management of prostate cancer. BJU Int 2009;103:1614–1620.

    External Resources

  55. Hricak H: MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging in the pre-treatment evaluation of prostate cancer. Br J Radiol 2005;78:S103–S111.

    External Resources

  56. Sciarra A, Panebianco V, Salciciccia S, et al: Modern role of magnetic resonance and spectroscopy in the imaging of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2011;29:12–20.

    External Resources

  57. Engelbrecht MR, Hiusman HJ, Laheij RJ, et al: Discrimination of prostate cancer from normal peripheral zone and central gland tissue by using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2003;229:248–254.
  58. Futterer JJ, Engelbrecht MR, Huisman HJ, et al: Staging prostate cancer with dynamic contrast-enhanced endorectal MR imaging prior to radical prostatectomy: experienced versus less experienced readers. Radiology 2005;237:541–549.

    External Resources

  59. Beyersdorff D, Taymoorian K, Knosel T, et al: MRI of prostate cancer at 1.5 T and 3.0 T: comparison of image quality in tumor detection and staging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:1214–1220.

    External Resources

  60. Heijmink SW, Futterer JJ, Hambrock T, et al: Prostate cancer: body-array versus endorectal coil MR imaging at 3T-comparison of image quality localization, and staging performance. Radiology 2007;244:184–195.

    External Resources

  61. Bloch BN, Furman-Haran E, Helbich TH, et al: Prostate cancer: accurate determination of extracapsular extension with high-spatial resolution dynamic contrast-enhanced and T2-weighted MR imaging – initial results. Radiology 2007;245:176–185.

    External Resources

  62. Seitz M, Shukla-dave A, Bjartell A, et al: Functional magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2009;55:801–814.
  63. Qayyum A, Coakley FV, Lu Y, et al: Organ-confined prostate cancer: effect of prior transrectal biopsy on endorectal MRI and MR spectroscopic imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:1079–1083.

    External Resources

  64. White S, Hricak H, Forstner R, et al: Prostate cancer: effect of postbiopsy hemorrhage on interpretation of MR images. Radiology 1995;195:385–390.
  65. Park KK, Lee SH, Lim BJ, Kim JH, Chung BH: The effect of the period between biopsy and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging on cancer staging in localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2010;106:1148–1151.

    External Resources

  66. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Moore C, et al: The effect of the period between biopsy and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging on cancer staging in localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2010;106:131–132.

    External Resources

  67. Kim CK, Park BK, Kim B: Diffusion-weighted MRI at 3 T for the evaluation of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194:1461–1469.

    External Resources

  68. Kim CK, Choi D, Park BK, Kwon GY, Lim HK: Diffusion-weighted MR imaging for the evaluation of seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer: initial results. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008;28:963–969.

    External Resources

  69. Phelps ME: Inaugural article: positron emission tomography provides molecular imaging of biological processes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2000;97:9226–9233.
  70. Weber G: Enzymology of cancer cells (second of two parts). N Engl J Med 1977;296:541–551.
  71. Brown RS, Leung JY, Kison PV, Zasadny KR, Flint A, Wahl RL: Glucose transporters and FDG uptake in untreated primary human non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 1999;40:556–565.
  72. Delbeke D: Oncological applications of FDG PET imaging. J Nucl Med 1999;40:1706–1715.
  73. Higashi K, Ueda Y, Yagishita M, et al: FDG PET measurement of the proliferative potential of non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 2000;41:85–92.
  74. Reske SN, Grillenberger KG, Glatting G, et al: Overexpression of glucose transporter 1 and increased FDG uptake in pancreatic carcinoma. J Nucl Med 1997;38:1344–1348.
  75. Su TS, Tsai TF, Chi CW, Han SH, Chou CK: Elevation of facilitated glucose-transporter messenger RNA in human hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 1990;11:118–122.
  76. Vesselle H, Schmidt RA, Pugsley JM, et al: Lung cancer proliferation correlates with [F-18]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake by positron emission tomography. Clin Cancer Res 2000;6:3837–3844.
  77. Effert PJ, Bares R, Handt S, Wolff JM, Bull U, Jakse G: Metabolic imaging of untreated prostate cancer by positron emission tomography with 18-fluorine-labeled deoxyglucose. J Urol 1996;155:994–998.
  78. Liu IJ, Zafar MB, Lai YH, Segall GM, Terris MK: Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography studies in diagnosis and staging of clinically organ-confined prostate cancer. Urology 2001;57:108–111.
  79. Turkbey B, Pinto PA, Chyke PL: Imaging techniques for prostate cancer: implications for focal therapy. Nat Rev Urol 2009;6:191–203.

    External Resources

  80. Bouchelouche K, Oher P: Positron emission tomography/computed tomography of urological malignancies: an update review. J Urol 2008;179:34–45.
  81. Zeisel SH: Dietary choline: biochemistry, physiology and pharmacology. Annu Rev Nutr 1981;1:95–121.
  82. Ackerstaff E, Pflug BR, Nelson JB, Bhujwalla ZM: Detection of increased choline compunds with proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy subsequent to malignant transformation of human prostatic epithelial cells. Cancer Res 2001;61:3599–3603.
  83. Sutiner E, Nurmi M, Roivainen A, et al: Kinetics of 11C-choline uptake in prostate cancer: a PET study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;31:317–324.

    External Resources

  84. Husarik DB, Miralbel R, Dubs M, et al: Evaluation of 18F-choline PET/TC for staging and restaging of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008;35:253–263.
  85. Oyama N, Akino H, Suzuki Y, et al: The increased accumulation of 18F-fluoro-deoxyglucose in untreated prostate cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 1999;29:623–629.
  86. Eschmann SM, Pfannenberg AC, Rieger A, et al: Comparison of 11C-choline PET/CT and whole body-MRI for staging of prostate cancer. Nuklearmedizin 2007;46:161–168.
  87. Rinnab L, Blumstein NM, Mottaghy FM, et al: 11C-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography and transrectal ultrasonography for staging localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2007;99:1421–1426.
  88. Farsad M, Schiavina R, Castellucci P, et al: Detection and localization of prostate cancer: correlation of 11C-choline PET/CT with histopathologic step-section analysis. J Nucl Med 2005;46:1642–1649.
  89. Martorana G, Schaivina R, Cort B, et al: 11C-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography for tumor localization of primary prostate cancer in comparison with 12-core biopsy. J Urol 2006;176:954–960.
  90. Beheshti M, Imamovic L, Broinger G, et al: 18F-choline PET/TC in the preoperative staging of prostate cancer in patients with intermediate or high risk of extracapsular disease: a prospective study on 130 patients. Radiology 2010;254:925–933.

    External Resources

  91. O’Dowd GJ, Veltri RW, Orozco R, Miller MC, Oesterling JE: Update on the appropriate staging evaluation for newly diagnosed prostate cancer. J Urol 1997;158:687–698.
  92. Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN, et al: Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer: a multi-institutional update. JAMA 1997;277:1445–1451.
  93. Ohori M, Kattan MW, Koh H: Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: a nomogram for staging prostate cancer. J Urol 2004;171:1844–1849.
  94. Pouliot F, Johnson M, Wu L: Non-invasive molecular imaging of prostate cancer lymph nodes metastases. Trends Mol Med 2009;15:254–260.
  95. Hövels AM, Heesakkers RA, Adang EM, et al: The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol 2008;63:387–395.
  96. Harisinghani MG, Barentsz J, Hahn PF, et al: Noninvasive detection of clinically occult lymph-node metastases in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2491–2499.
  97. Zahee A, Cho SY, Pomper MG: New agents and techniques for imaging prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 2009;50:1387–1390.

    External Resources

  98. Thoeny HC, Triantafyllou M, Birkhaeuser FD, et al: Combined ultrasmall superparamagnetic particles of iron oxide-enhanced and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging reliably detect pelvic lymph node metastases in normal sized nodes of bladder and prostate cancer patients. Eur Urol 2009;55:761–769.

    External Resources

  99. de Jong IJ, Pruim J, Elsinga PH, Vaalburg W, Mensink HJ: Preoperative staging of pelvic lymph nodes in prostate cancer by 11C-choline PET. J Nucl Med 2003;44:331–335.
  100. Schiavina R, Scattoni V, Castellucci P, et al: (11)C-choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for preoperative lymph node staging in intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer: comparison with clinical staging nomograms. Eur Urol 2008;54:392–401.

    External Resources

  101. Beheshti M, Imamovic L, broinger G, et al: 18F-choline PET/CT in the preoperative staging of prostate cancer in patients with intermediate or high risk of extracapsular disease: a prospective study of 130 patients. Radiology 2010;254:925–933.

    External Resources

  102. Steuber T, Scholomm T, Heinzer H, et al: [F(18)]-fluoroethylcholine combined in-line PET-TC scan for detection of lymph node metastasis in high risk prostate cancer patients prior to radical prostatectomy: preliminary results from a prospective histology-based study. Eur J Cancer 2010;2:449–455.

    External Resources

  103. Poulsen MH, Bouchelouche K, Gerke O, et al: [F(18)]-fluorocholine positron-emission/computed tomography for lymph node staging of patients with prostate cancer: preliminary results of a prospective study. BJU Int 2010;106:639–643.

    External Resources

  104. Budiharto T, Joniau S, Lerut E, et al: Prospective evaluation of (11)C-choline positron emission tomography and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for the nodal staging of prostate cancer with a high risk of lymph node metastases. Eur Urol 2011;60:125–130.

    External Resources

  105. Thurairaia R, McFarlane J, Traill Z, Persad R: State–of-the-art approaches to detecting early bone metastasis in prostate cancer. BJU Int 2004;94:268–271.

    External Resources

  106. European Association of Urology Guidelines 2010. http://www.uroweb.org/guidelines/.
  107. Oesterling JE: Using PSA to eliminate the staging radionuclide bone scan: significant economic implications. Urol Clin North Am 1993;20:705–711.
  108. O’Dowd GJ, Veltri RW, Orozco R, Miller MC, Oesterling JE: Update on the appropriate staging evaluation for newly diagnosed prostate cancer. J Urol 1997;158:687–698.
  109. Messiou C, Cook G, de Souza NM: Imaging metastatic bone disease from carcinoma of the prostate. Br J Cancer 2009;101:1225–1232.
  110. Lawrentschuk N, Davis ID, Bolton DM, Scott AM: Diagnostic and therapeutic use of radioisotopes for bony disease in prostate cancer: current practise. Int J Urol 2007;14:89–95.
  111. Pollen JJ, Witztum KS, Ashburn WL: The flare phenomenon on radionuclide bone scan in metastatic prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1984;142:773–776.
  112. Schneider JA, Divgi CR, Scott AM, et al: Flare on bone scintigraphy following Taxol chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. J Nucl Med 1994;35:1748–1752.
  113. Taoka T, Mayr NA, Lee HJ, et al: Factors influencing visualization of vertebral metastases on MR imaging versus bone scintigraphy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:1525–1530.
  114. Leucovet FE, Geukens D, Stainer A, et al: Magnetic resonance imaging of the axial skeleton for detecting bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: diagnostic and cost-effectiveness and comparison with current detection strategies. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:3281–3287.

    External Resources

  115. Gutzeit A, Doert A, Froehlich JM, et al: Comparison of diffusion-weighted whole body MRI and skeletal scintigraphy for the detection of bone metastases in patients with prostate or breast carcinoma. Skeletal Radiol 2010;39:333–343.

    External Resources

  116. Reischauer C, Froelich JM, Koh DM, et al: Bone metastases from prostate cancer: assessing treatment response by using diffusion-weighted imaging and functional diffusion maps – initial observations. Radiology 2010;257:523–531.

    External Resources

  117. Nozaki T, Yusuda K, Akashi T, et al: Usefulness of single photon emission computed tomography imaging in the detection of lumbar vertebral metastases from prostate cancer. Int J Urol 2008;15:516–519.

    External Resources

  118. Delpassand ES, Garcia JR, Bhadkamar V, Podoloff DA: Value of SPECT imaging of the thoracolumbar spine in cancer patients. Clin Nucl Med 1995;20:1047–1051.
  119. Even-Sapir E, Martin RH, Barnes DC, Pringle CR, Iles SE, Mitchell MJ: Role of SPECT in differentiating malignant from benign lesions in the lower thoracic and lumbar vertebrae. Radiology 1993;187:193–198.
  120. Helyar V, Mohan HK, Barwick T, et al: The added value of multislice SPECT/CT in patients with equivocal bony metastasis from carcinoma of the prostate. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37:706–713.

    External Resources

  121. Morris MJ, Akhurst T, Osman I, et al: Fluorinated deoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging in progressive metastatic prostate cancer. Urology 2002;59:913–918.

    External Resources

  122. Akin O, Hricak H: Imaging of prostate cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 2007;45:207–222.

    External Resources

  123. Schoder H, Larson SM: Positron emission tomography for prostate, bladder, and renal cancer. Semin Nucl Med 2004;34:274–292.
  124. Jager PL, Vaalburg W, Pruim J, de Vries EG, Langen KJ, Piers DA: Radiolabeled amino acids: basic aspects and clinical applications in oncology. J Nucl Med 2001;42:432–445.
  125. Nunez R, Macapinlac HA, Yeung HW, et al: Combined 18F-FDG and 11C-methionine PET scans in patients with newly progressive metastatic prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 2002;43:46–55.
  126. Fuccio C, Castellucci P, Schiavina R, et al: Role of 11-choline PET/CT in the restaging of prostate cancer patients showing a single lesion on bone scintigraphy. Ann Nucl Med 2010;24:485–492.
  127. Even-Sapir E, Metser U, Mishani E, Lievshitz G, Lerman H, Leibovitch I: The detection of bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: 99mTc-MDP Planar bone scintigraphy, single- and multi-field-of-view SPECT, 18F-fluoride PET, and 18F-fluoride PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2006;47:287–297.
  128. Withofs N, Grayet B, Tancredi T, et al: 18F-fluoride PET/TC for assessing bone involvement in prostate and breast cancer. Nucl Med Commun 2011;32:168–176.

    External Resources

  129. McCarthy M, Siew T, Campbell A, et al: 18F-fluoromethylcholine (FCH) PET imaging in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer: prospective comparison with standard imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011;38:14–22.

    External Resources

  130. Jadvar H: Prostate cancer: PET with 18F-FDG, 18F- or 11C-acetate, and 18F- or 11C-choline. J Nucl Med 2001;52:81–89.

    External Resources

  

Author Contacts

Francesco Pinto
Department of Urology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart
Largo A. Gemelli, 8
IT–00168 Rome (Italy)
Tel. +39 06 3015 5290, E-Mail francesco.pinto@libero.it

  

Article Information

Published online: January 27, 2012
Number of Print Pages : 12
Number of Figures : 4, Number of Tables : 5, Number of References : 130

  

Publication Details

Urologia Internationalis

Vol. 88, No. 2, Year 2012 (Cover Date: March 2012)

Journal Editor: Wirth M.P. (Dresden), Porena M. (Perugia), Hakenberg O.W. (Rostock), Castro-Diaz D. (Santa Cruz de Tenerife)
ISSN: 0042-1138 (Print), eISSN: 1423-0399 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/UIN


Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

Abstract

Despite recent improvements in detection and treatment, prostate cancer continues to be the most common malignancy and the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality. Thus, although survival rate continues to improve, prostate cancer remains a compelling medical health problem. The major goal of prostate cancer imaging in the next decade will be more accurate disease characterization through the synthesis of anatomic, functional, and molecular imaging information in order to plan the most appropriate therapeutic strategy. No consensus exists regarding the use of imaging for evaluating primary prostate cancer. However, conventional and functional imaging are expanding their role in detection and local staging and, moreover, functional imaging is becoming of great importance in oncologic management and monitoring of therapy response. This review presents a multidisciplinary perspective on the role of conventional and functional imaging methods in prostate cancer staging.

© 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel


  

Author Contacts

Francesco Pinto
Department of Urology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart
Largo A. Gemelli, 8
IT–00168 Rome (Italy)
Tel. +39 06 3015 5290, E-Mail francesco.pinto@libero.it

  

Article Information

Published online: January 27, 2012
Number of Print Pages : 12
Number of Figures : 4, Number of Tables : 5, Number of References : 130

  

Publication Details

Urologia Internationalis

Vol. 88, No. 2, Year 2012 (Cover Date: March 2012)

Journal Editor: Wirth M.P. (Dresden), Porena M. (Perugia), Hakenberg O.W. (Rostock), Castro-Diaz D. (Santa Cruz de Tenerife)
ISSN: 0042-1138 (Print), eISSN: 1423-0399 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/UIN


Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Review

Published online: 1/27/2012
Issue release date: March 2012

Number of Print Pages: 12
Number of Figures: 4
Number of Tables: 5

ISSN: 0042-1138 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0399 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/UIN


Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

References

  1. Farlay J, Parkin DM, Steliarova-Foucher E: Estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2008. Eur J Cancer 2010;46:765–781.

    External Resources

  2. SEER Stat Fact Sheets: prostate. Available at http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html 2010.
  3. Hanley JA: Mortality reductions produced by sustained prostate cancer screening have been understimated. J Med Screen 2010;17:147–151.

    External Resources

  4. Silverberg E, Boring CC, Squires TS: Cancer statistics, 1990. CA Cancer J Clin 1990;40:9–26.
  5. Jemal A, Murray T, Ward E, et al: Cancer statistics, 2005. CA Cancer J Clin 2005;55:10–30; published correction in CA Cancer J Clin 2005;55:259.
  6. Soh S, Kattan MW, Berkman S, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT: Has there been a recent shift in the pathological features and prognosis of patients with radical prostatectomy? J Urol 1997;157:2212–2218.
  7. Lindner U, Trachtenberg J, Lawrentschuk N: Focal therapy in prostate cancer: modalities, findings and future considerations. Nat Rev Urol 2010;7:562–571.

    External Resources

  8. Cooperberg MR, Lubeck DP, Grossfeld GD, Mehta SS, Carroll PR: Contemporary trends in imaging test utilization for prostate cancer staging: data from the cancer of the prostate strategic urologic research endeavor. J Urol 2002;168:491–495.
  9. Turkbey B, Albert PS, Kurdzie K, Choyke P: Imaging localized prostate cancer: current approaches and new developments. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192:1471–1480

    External Resources

  10. Green FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al: AJCC cancer staging manual. New York, Springer, 2002.
  11. Amis ES Jr, Bigongiari LR, Bluth EI, et al: Pretreatment staging of clinically localized prostate cancer. Radiology 2000;215:703–708.
  12. Carroll P, Coley C, McLeod D, et al: Prostate-specific antigen best practice policy. II. Prostate cancer staging and post-treatment follow-up. Urology 2001;57:225–229.
  13. Ukimura O, Troncoso P, Ramirez EI, et al: Prostate cancer staging: correlation between ultrasound determined tumor contact length and pathologically confirmed extraprostatic extension. J Urol 1998;159:1251–1259.
  14. Ravizzini G, Turkbey B, Kurdziel K, Choyke PL: New horizons in prostate cancer imaging. Eur J Radiol 2009;70:212–226.

    External Resources

  15. Ohori M, Egawa S, Shinohara K, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT: Detection of microscopic extracapsular extension prior to radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Br J Urol 1994;74:72–79.
  16. Fütterer JJ, Barentsz J, Heijmijnk ST: Imaging modalities for prostate cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2009;9:923–937.

    External Resources

  17. Ukimura O: Evolution of precise and multimodal MRI and TRUS in detection and management of early prostate cancer. Expert Rev Med Devices 2010;7:541–554.

    External Resources

  18. Sauvain JL, Palascak P, Bourscheid D, et al: Value of power Doppler and 3D vascular sonography as a method for diagnosis and staging prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2003;44:21–30.
  19. Ellegala DB, Leong-Poi H, Carpenter JE, et al: Imaging tumor angiogenesis with contrast ultrasound and microbubbles targeted to alpha(v)beta3. Circulation 2003;108:336–341.
  20. Aigner F, Mitterberger M, Rehder P, et al: Status of transrectal ultrasound imaging of the prostate. J Endourol 2010;24:685–691.

    External Resources

  21. Ohori M, Shinohara K, Wheeler TM, et al: Ultrasonic detection of non-palpable seminal vesicle invasion: a clinicopathological study. Br J Urol 1993;72:799–808.
  22. Scardino PT, Shinohara K, Wheeler TM, Carter SS: Staging of prostate cancer: value of ultrasonography. Urol Clin North Am 1989;16:713–734.
  23. Walsh JW, Amendola MA, Konerding KF, Tisnado J, Hazra TA: Computed tomographic detection of pelvic and inguinal lymph-node metastases from primary and recurrent pelvic malignant disease. Radiology 1980;137:157–166.
  24. Tarcan T, Turkeri L, Biren T, Kullu S, Gurmen N, Akdas A: The effectiveness of imaging modalities in clinical staging of localized prostate cancer. Int Urol Nephrol 1996;28:773–779.
  25. Yu KK, Hricak H: Imaging prostate cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 2000;38:59–85.
  26. Burcombe RJ, Ostler PJ, Ayoub AW, Hoskin PJ: The role of staging CT scans in the treatment of prostate cancer: a retrospective audit. Clin Oncol 2000;12:32–35.
  27. Schnall MD, Pollack HM: Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate gland. Urol Radiol 1990;12:109–114.
  28. Zakian KL, Eberhardt S, Hricak H, et al: Transition zone prostate cancer: metabolic characteristics at 1H MR spectroscopic imaging – initial results. Radiology 2003;229:241–247.
  29. Akin O, Sala E, Moskowitz CS, et al: Transition zone prostate cancers: features, detection, localization, and staging at endorectal MR imaging. Radiology 2006;239:784–792.

    External Resources

  30. Sala E, Akin O, Moskowitz CS, et al: Endorectal MR imaging in the evaluation of seminal vesicle invasion: diagnostic accuracy and multivariate feature analysis. Radiology 2006;238:929–937.

    External Resources

  31. Yu KK, Hricak H, Alagappan R, Chernoff DM, Bacchetti P, Zaloudek CJ: Detection of extracapsular extension of prostate carcinoma with endorectal and phased-array coil MR imaging: multivariate feature analysis. Radiology 1997;202:697–702.
  32. Yu KK, Scheidler J, Hricak H, et al: Prostate cancer: prediction of extracapsular extension with endorectal MR imaging and three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 1999;213:481–488.
  33. Outwater EK, Petersen RO, Siegelman ES, Gomella LG, Chernesky CE, Mitchell DG: Prostate carcinoma: assessment of diagnostic criteria for capsular penetration on endorectal coil MR images. Radiology 1994;193:333–339.
  34. Bartolozzi C, Menchi I, Lencioni R, et al: Local staging of prostate carcinoma with endorectal coil MRI: correlation with whole-mount radical prostatectomy specimens. Eur Radiol 1996;6:339–345.
  35. Cornud F, Flam T, Chauveinc L, et al: Extraprostatic spread of clinically localized prostate cancer: factors predictive of pT3 tumor and of positive endorectal MR imaging examination results. Radiology 2002;224:203–210.
  36. Ikonen S, Karkkainen P, Kivisaari L, et al: Magnetic resonance imaging of clinically localized prostatic cancer. J Urol 1998;159:915–919.
  37. Ikonen S, Karkkainen P, Kivisaari L, et al: Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging of prostatic cancer: comparison between fat-suppressed T2-weighted fast spin echo and three-dimensional dual-echo, steady-state sequences. Eur Radiol 2001;11:236–241.
  38. May F, Treumann T, Dettmar P, Hartung R, Breul J: Limited value of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasonography in the staging of clinically localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2001;87:66–69.
  39. Perrotti M, Kaufman RP Jr, Jennings TA, et al: Endo-rectal coil magnetic resonance imaging in clinically localized prostate cancer: is it accurate? J Urol 1996;156:106–109.
  40. Presti JC, Hricak H, Narayan PA, Shinohara K, White S, Carroll PR: Local staging of prostatic carcinoma: comparison of transrectal sonography and endorectal MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;166:103–108.
  41. Rorvik J, Halvorsen OJ, Albrektsen G, Ersland L, Daehlin L, Haukaas S: MRI with an endorectal coil for staging of clinically localised prostate cancer prior to radical prostatectomy. Eur Radiol 1999;9:29–34.
  42. Schiebler ML, Yankaskas BC, Tempany C, et al: MR imaging in adenocarcinoma of the prostate: interobserver variation and efficacy for determining stage C disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992;158:559–562.
  43. Mullerad M, Hricak H, Wang L, Chen HN, Kattan MW, Scardino PT: Prostate cancer: detection of extracapsular extension by genitourinary and general body radiologists at MR imaging. Radiology 2004;232:140–146.

    External Resources

  44. Wang L, Mullerad M, Chen HN, et al: Prostate cancer: incremental value of endorectal MR imaging findings for prediction of extracapsular extension. Radiology 2004;232:133–139.

    External Resources

  45. Brajtbord JS, Lavery HJ, Nabizada-Pace F, Senaratne P, Samadi DB: Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging has limited clinical ability to preoperatively predict pT3 prostate cancer. BJU Int 2011;107:1419–1424.

    External Resources

  46. Lee SH, Park KK, Choi KH, et al: Is endorectal coil necessary for the staging of clinically localized prostate cancer? Comparison of non-endorectal versus endorectal MR imaging. World J Urol 2010;28:667–672.

    External Resources

  47. Nogueira L, Wang L, Fine SW et al: Focal treatment or observation of prostate cancer: pretreatment accuracy of transrectal ultrasound biopsy and T2-weighted MRI. Urology 2010;75:472–477.

    External Resources

  48. Wang L, Hricak H, Kattan MW, Chen HN, Scardino PT, Kuroiwa K: Prediction of organ confined prostate cancer: incremental value of MRI and MRI spectroscopic imaging to staging nomograms. Radiology 2006;238:597–603.

    External Resources

  49. Lavery HJ, Brajtbord JS, Levinson AW, Nabizada-Pace F, Pollard ME, Samadi DB: Unnecessary imaging for the staging of low-risk prostate cancer is common. Urology 2011;77:274–278.

    External Resources

  50. Costello LC, Franklin RB, Feng P: Mitochondrial function, zinc, and intermediary metabolism relationships in normal prostate and prostate cancer. Mitochondrion 2005;5:143–153.
  51. Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron DB: Advances in MR spectroscopy of the prostate. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2008;16:697–710.

    External Resources

  52. Pinto F, Totaro A, Calarco A: Imaging in prostate cancer diagnosis: present role and future perspectives. Urol Int 2011;86:373–382.
  53. Scheidler J, Hricak H, Vigneron DB, et al: Prostate cancer: localization with three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging – clinicopathologic study. Radiology 1999;213:473–480.
  54. Nayyar R, Kumar R, Kumar V, Jagannathan NR, Gupta NP, Hemal AK: Magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging: current status in the management of prostate cancer. BJU Int 2009;103:1614–1620.

    External Resources

  55. Hricak H: MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging in the pre-treatment evaluation of prostate cancer. Br J Radiol 2005;78:S103–S111.

    External Resources

  56. Sciarra A, Panebianco V, Salciciccia S, et al: Modern role of magnetic resonance and spectroscopy in the imaging of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2011;29:12–20.

    External Resources

  57. Engelbrecht MR, Hiusman HJ, Laheij RJ, et al: Discrimination of prostate cancer from normal peripheral zone and central gland tissue by using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2003;229:248–254.
  58. Futterer JJ, Engelbrecht MR, Huisman HJ, et al: Staging prostate cancer with dynamic contrast-enhanced endorectal MR imaging prior to radical prostatectomy: experienced versus less experienced readers. Radiology 2005;237:541–549.

    External Resources

  59. Beyersdorff D, Taymoorian K, Knosel T, et al: MRI of prostate cancer at 1.5 T and 3.0 T: comparison of image quality in tumor detection and staging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:1214–1220.

    External Resources

  60. Heijmink SW, Futterer JJ, Hambrock T, et al: Prostate cancer: body-array versus endorectal coil MR imaging at 3T-comparison of image quality localization, and staging performance. Radiology 2007;244:184–195.

    External Resources

  61. Bloch BN, Furman-Haran E, Helbich TH, et al: Prostate cancer: accurate determination of extracapsular extension with high-spatial resolution dynamic contrast-enhanced and T2-weighted MR imaging – initial results. Radiology 2007;245:176–185.

    External Resources

  62. Seitz M, Shukla-dave A, Bjartell A, et al: Functional magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2009;55:801–814.
  63. Qayyum A, Coakley FV, Lu Y, et al: Organ-confined prostate cancer: effect of prior transrectal biopsy on endorectal MRI and MR spectroscopic imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:1079–1083.

    External Resources

  64. White S, Hricak H, Forstner R, et al: Prostate cancer: effect of postbiopsy hemorrhage on interpretation of MR images. Radiology 1995;195:385–390.
  65. Park KK, Lee SH, Lim BJ, Kim JH, Chung BH: The effect of the period between biopsy and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging on cancer staging in localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2010;106:1148–1151.

    External Resources

  66. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Moore C, et al: The effect of the period between biopsy and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging on cancer staging in localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2010;106:131–132.

    External Resources

  67. Kim CK, Park BK, Kim B: Diffusion-weighted MRI at 3 T for the evaluation of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194:1461–1469.

    External Resources

  68. Kim CK, Choi D, Park BK, Kwon GY, Lim HK: Diffusion-weighted MR imaging for the evaluation of seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer: initial results. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008;28:963–969.

    External Resources

  69. Phelps ME: Inaugural article: positron emission tomography provides molecular imaging of biological processes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2000;97:9226–9233.
  70. Weber G: Enzymology of cancer cells (second of two parts). N Engl J Med 1977;296:541–551.
  71. Brown RS, Leung JY, Kison PV, Zasadny KR, Flint A, Wahl RL: Glucose transporters and FDG uptake in untreated primary human non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 1999;40:556–565.
  72. Delbeke D: Oncological applications of FDG PET imaging. J Nucl Med 1999;40:1706–1715.
  73. Higashi K, Ueda Y, Yagishita M, et al: FDG PET measurement of the proliferative potential of non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 2000;41:85–92.
  74. Reske SN, Grillenberger KG, Glatting G, et al: Overexpression of glucose transporter 1 and increased FDG uptake in pancreatic carcinoma. J Nucl Med 1997;38:1344–1348.
  75. Su TS, Tsai TF, Chi CW, Han SH, Chou CK: Elevation of facilitated glucose-transporter messenger RNA in human hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 1990;11:118–122.
  76. Vesselle H, Schmidt RA, Pugsley JM, et al: Lung cancer proliferation correlates with [F-18]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake by positron emission tomography. Clin Cancer Res 2000;6:3837–3844.
  77. Effert PJ, Bares R, Handt S, Wolff JM, Bull U, Jakse G: Metabolic imaging of untreated prostate cancer by positron emission tomography with 18-fluorine-labeled deoxyglucose. J Urol 1996;155:994–998.
  78. Liu IJ, Zafar MB, Lai YH, Segall GM, Terris MK: Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography studies in diagnosis and staging of clinically organ-confined prostate cancer. Urology 2001;57:108–111.
  79. Turkbey B, Pinto PA, Chyke PL: Imaging techniques for prostate cancer: implications for focal therapy. Nat Rev Urol 2009;6:191–203.

    External Resources

  80. Bouchelouche K, Oher P: Positron emission tomography/computed tomography of urological malignancies: an update review. J Urol 2008;179:34–45.
  81. Zeisel SH: Dietary choline: biochemistry, physiology and pharmacology. Annu Rev Nutr 1981;1:95–121.
  82. Ackerstaff E, Pflug BR, Nelson JB, Bhujwalla ZM: Detection of increased choline compunds with proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy subsequent to malignant transformation of human prostatic epithelial cells. Cancer Res 2001;61:3599–3603.
  83. Sutiner E, Nurmi M, Roivainen A, et al: Kinetics of 11C-choline uptake in prostate cancer: a PET study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;31:317–324.

    External Resources

  84. Husarik DB, Miralbel R, Dubs M, et al: Evaluation of 18F-choline PET/TC for staging and restaging of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008;35:253–263.
  85. Oyama N, Akino H, Suzuki Y, et al: The increased accumulation of 18F-fluoro-deoxyglucose in untreated prostate cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 1999;29:623–629.
  86. Eschmann SM, Pfannenberg AC, Rieger A, et al: Comparison of 11C-choline PET/CT and whole body-MRI for staging of prostate cancer. Nuklearmedizin 2007;46:161–168.
  87. Rinnab L, Blumstein NM, Mottaghy FM, et al: 11C-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography and transrectal ultrasonography for staging localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2007;99:1421–1426.
  88. Farsad M, Schiavina R, Castellucci P, et al: Detection and localization of prostate cancer: correlation of 11C-choline PET/CT with histopathologic step-section analysis. J Nucl Med 2005;46:1642–1649.
  89. Martorana G, Schaivina R, Cort B, et al: 11C-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography for tumor localization of primary prostate cancer in comparison with 12-core biopsy. J Urol 2006;176:954–960.
  90. Beheshti M, Imamovic L, Broinger G, et al: 18F-choline PET/TC in the preoperative staging of prostate cancer in patients with intermediate or high risk of extracapsular disease: a prospective study on 130 patients. Radiology 2010;254:925–933.

    External Resources

  91. O’Dowd GJ, Veltri RW, Orozco R, Miller MC, Oesterling JE: Update on the appropriate staging evaluation for newly diagnosed prostate cancer. J Urol 1997;158:687–698.
  92. Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN, et al: Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer: a multi-institutional update. JAMA 1997;277:1445–1451.
  93. Ohori M, Kattan MW, Koh H: Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: a nomogram for staging prostate cancer. J Urol 2004;171:1844–1849.
  94. Pouliot F, Johnson M, Wu L: Non-invasive molecular imaging of prostate cancer lymph nodes metastases. Trends Mol Med 2009;15:254–260.
  95. Hövels AM, Heesakkers RA, Adang EM, et al: The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol 2008;63:387–395.
  96. Harisinghani MG, Barentsz J, Hahn PF, et al: Noninvasive detection of clinically occult lymph-node metastases in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2491–2499.
  97. Zahee A, Cho SY, Pomper MG: New agents and techniques for imaging prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 2009;50:1387–1390.

    External Resources

  98. Thoeny HC, Triantafyllou M, Birkhaeuser FD, et al: Combined ultrasmall superparamagnetic particles of iron oxide-enhanced and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging reliably detect pelvic lymph node metastases in normal sized nodes of bladder and prostate cancer patients. Eur Urol 2009;55:761–769.

    External Resources

  99. de Jong IJ, Pruim J, Elsinga PH, Vaalburg W, Mensink HJ: Preoperative staging of pelvic lymph nodes in prostate cancer by 11C-choline PET. J Nucl Med 2003;44:331–335.
  100. Schiavina R, Scattoni V, Castellucci P, et al: (11)C-choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for preoperative lymph node staging in intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer: comparison with clinical staging nomograms. Eur Urol 2008;54:392–401.

    External Resources

  101. Beheshti M, Imamovic L, broinger G, et al: 18F-choline PET/CT in the preoperative staging of prostate cancer in patients with intermediate or high risk of extracapsular disease: a prospective study of 130 patients. Radiology 2010;254:925–933.

    External Resources

  102. Steuber T, Scholomm T, Heinzer H, et al: [F(18)]-fluoroethylcholine combined in-line PET-TC scan for detection of lymph node metastasis in high risk prostate cancer patients prior to radical prostatectomy: preliminary results from a prospective histology-based study. Eur J Cancer 2010;2:449–455.

    External Resources

  103. Poulsen MH, Bouchelouche K, Gerke O, et al: [F(18)]-fluorocholine positron-emission/computed tomography for lymph node staging of patients with prostate cancer: preliminary results of a prospective study. BJU Int 2010;106:639–643.

    External Resources

  104. Budiharto T, Joniau S, Lerut E, et al: Prospective evaluation of (11)C-choline positron emission tomography and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for the nodal staging of prostate cancer with a high risk of lymph node metastases. Eur Urol 2011;60:125–130.

    External Resources

  105. Thurairaia R, McFarlane J, Traill Z, Persad R: State–of-the-art approaches to detecting early bone metastasis in prostate cancer. BJU Int 2004;94:268–271.

    External Resources

  106. European Association of Urology Guidelines 2010. http://www.uroweb.org/guidelines/.
  107. Oesterling JE: Using PSA to eliminate the staging radionuclide bone scan: significant economic implications. Urol Clin North Am 1993;20:705–711.
  108. O’Dowd GJ, Veltri RW, Orozco R, Miller MC, Oesterling JE: Update on the appropriate staging evaluation for newly diagnosed prostate cancer. J Urol 1997;158:687–698.
  109. Messiou C, Cook G, de Souza NM: Imaging metastatic bone disease from carcinoma of the prostate. Br J Cancer 2009;101:1225–1232.
  110. Lawrentschuk N, Davis ID, Bolton DM, Scott AM: Diagnostic and therapeutic use of radioisotopes for bony disease in prostate cancer: current practise. Int J Urol 2007;14:89–95.
  111. Pollen JJ, Witztum KS, Ashburn WL: The flare phenomenon on radionuclide bone scan in metastatic prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1984;142:773–776.
  112. Schneider JA, Divgi CR, Scott AM, et al: Flare on bone scintigraphy following Taxol chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. J Nucl Med 1994;35:1748–1752.
  113. Taoka T, Mayr NA, Lee HJ, et al: Factors influencing visualization of vertebral metastases on MR imaging versus bone scintigraphy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:1525–1530.
  114. Leucovet FE, Geukens D, Stainer A, et al: Magnetic resonance imaging of the axial skeleton for detecting bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: diagnostic and cost-effectiveness and comparison with current detection strategies. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:3281–3287.

    External Resources

  115. Gutzeit A, Doert A, Froehlich JM, et al: Comparison of diffusion-weighted whole body MRI and skeletal scintigraphy for the detection of bone metastases in patients with prostate or breast carcinoma. Skeletal Radiol 2010;39:333–343.

    External Resources

  116. Reischauer C, Froelich JM, Koh DM, et al: Bone metastases from prostate cancer: assessing treatment response by using diffusion-weighted imaging and functional diffusion maps – initial observations. Radiology 2010;257:523–531.

    External Resources

  117. Nozaki T, Yusuda K, Akashi T, et al: Usefulness of single photon emission computed tomography imaging in the detection of lumbar vertebral metastases from prostate cancer. Int J Urol 2008;15:516–519.

    External Resources

  118. Delpassand ES, Garcia JR, Bhadkamar V, Podoloff DA: Value of SPECT imaging of the thoracolumbar spine in cancer patients. Clin Nucl Med 1995;20:1047–1051.
  119. Even-Sapir E, Martin RH, Barnes DC, Pringle CR, Iles SE, Mitchell MJ: Role of SPECT in differentiating malignant from benign lesions in the lower thoracic and lumbar vertebrae. Radiology 1993;187:193–198.
  120. Helyar V, Mohan HK, Barwick T, et al: The added value of multislice SPECT/CT in patients with equivocal bony metastasis from carcinoma of the prostate. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37:706–713.

    External Resources

  121. Morris MJ, Akhurst T, Osman I, et al: Fluorinated deoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging in progressive metastatic prostate cancer. Urology 2002;59:913–918.

    External Resources

  122. Akin O, Hricak H: Imaging of prostate cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 2007;45:207–222.

    External Resources

  123. Schoder H, Larson SM: Positron emission tomography for prostate, bladder, and renal cancer. Semin Nucl Med 2004;34:274–292.
  124. Jager PL, Vaalburg W, Pruim J, de Vries EG, Langen KJ, Piers DA: Radiolabeled amino acids: basic aspects and clinical applications in oncology. J Nucl Med 2001;42:432–445.
  125. Nunez R, Macapinlac HA, Yeung HW, et al: Combined 18F-FDG and 11C-methionine PET scans in patients with newly progressive metastatic prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 2002;43:46–55.
  126. Fuccio C, Castellucci P, Schiavina R, et al: Role of 11-choline PET/CT in the restaging of prostate cancer patients showing a single lesion on bone scintigraphy. Ann Nucl Med 2010;24:485–492.
  127. Even-Sapir E, Metser U, Mishani E, Lievshitz G, Lerman H, Leibovitch I: The detection of bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: 99mTc-MDP Planar bone scintigraphy, single- and multi-field-of-view SPECT, 18F-fluoride PET, and 18F-fluoride PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2006;47:287–297.
  128. Withofs N, Grayet B, Tancredi T, et al: 18F-fluoride PET/TC for assessing bone involvement in prostate and breast cancer. Nucl Med Commun 2011;32:168–176.

    External Resources

  129. McCarthy M, Siew T, Campbell A, et al: 18F-fluoromethylcholine (FCH) PET imaging in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer: prospective comparison with standard imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011;38:14–22.

    External Resources

  130. Jadvar H: Prostate cancer: PET with 18F-FDG, 18F- or 11C-acetate, and 18F- or 11C-choline. J Nucl Med 2001;52:81–89.

    External Resources