HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hricak, H. Articles by Scardino, P. T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hricak, H. Articles by Scardino, P. T. Related Collections Related Article

Imaging Prostate Cancer: A Multidisciplinary Perspective¹

¹ From the Departments of Radiology (H.H.) and Urology (P.T.S.), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, C-278, New York, NY 10021; Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institutes Center for Cancer Research, Bethesda, Md (P.L.C.); Department of Radiology, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, NM (S.C.E.); and Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (S.A.L.). Received April 11, 2003; revision requested May 29; revision received June 19, 2006; final version accepted August 9; final review and update by H.H. August 25. Address correspondence to H.H. (e-mail: hricakh{at}mskcc.org).

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT CARE PATTERNS AND REVIEW... USE OF IMAGING IN... SUMMARY ESSENTIALS References

 
The major goal for prostate cancer imaging in the next decade is more accurate disease characterization through the synthesis of anatomic, functional, and molecular imaging information. No consensus exists regarding the use of imaging for evaluating primary prostate cancers. Ultrasonography is mainly used for biopsy guidance and brachytherapy seed placement. Endorectal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is helpful for evaluating local tumor extent, and MR spectroscopic imaging can improve this evaluation while providing information about tumor aggressiveness. MR imaging with superparamagnetic nanoparticles has high sensitivity and specificity in depicting lymph node metastases, but guidelines have not yet been developed for its use, which remains restricted to the research setting. Computed tomography (CT) is reserved for the evaluation of advanced disease. The use of combined positron emission tomography/CT is limited in the assessment of primary disease but is gaining acceptance in prostate cancer treatment follow-up. Evidence-based guidelines for the use of imaging in assessing the risk of distant spread of prostate cancer are available. Radionuclide bone scanning and CT supplement clinical and biochemical evaluation (prostate-specific antigen [PSA], prostatic acid phosphate) for suspected metastasis to bones and lymph nodes. Guidelines for the use of bone scanning (in patients with PSA level > 10 ng/mL) and CT (in patients with PSA level > 20 ng/mL) have been published and are in clinical use. Nevertheless, changes in practice patterns have been slow. This review presents a multidisciplinary perspective on the optimal role of modern imaging in prostate cancer detection, staging, treatment planning, and follow-up.

© RSNA, 2007

Despite recent improvements in detection and treatment, prostate cancer continues to be the most common malignancy and the third leading cause of cancer-related mortality in American men. The American Cancer Society estimated that in 2007, 218 890 new cases of prostate cancer would be diagnosed and approximately 27 050 men would die of the disease in the United States (1). As the baby boomers age, it is anticipated that the rate of prostate cancer will increase. Thus, although the 5-year survival rate continues to improve, prostate cancer remains a compelling medical health problem.

	CARE PATTERNS AND REVIEW OF IMAGING TECHNOLOGIES

TOP ABSTRACT CARE PATTERNS AND REVIEW... USE OF IMAGING IN... SUMMARY ESSENTIALS References

 
The face of prostate cancer is changing. The widespread use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening has led to a dramatic downstaging of prostate cancer at diagnosis (1,2). Data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program demonstrate a remarkable decrease in the percentage of patients with distant metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis, from 20% for the period 1974–1985 to 5% for the period 1995–2000 (3,4). Similarly, in a single-institution study of patients with clinical stages T1 to T3NXM0 prostate cancer, the frequency of lymph node metastasis found at pelvic lymphadenectomy decreased from 23% in 1984 to 2% in 1995 (5). Earlier detection of prostate cancer has brought new challenges to clinical assessment and treatment selection—challenges that are compounded by the variability in natural history of the disease within the population at risk. The cancers detected today are smaller, lower stage, and lower grade than they were 20 years ago, but a wide range of aggressiveness remains. Our ability to predict biologic aggressiveness of tumors is still based on the histologic appearance of prostate cancer as assessed with the Gleason grading system, which has substantial limitations. A host of new biomarkers for prostate cancer are entering clinical practice and will undoubtedly alter treatment. Because men are being treated at a younger age, the long-term consequences of specific therapies merit increased consideration, since men may have to live with them for 20–30 years.

Prostate cancer is currently characterized by its clinical TNM stage, Gleason grade, and PSA serum level (1,6–8). PSA level is a strong indicator of stage and prognosis and is helpful in monitoring response to therapy. However, absolute PSA serum levels must be interpreted carefully with regard to the age of the patient, the size of the gland, and the presence of infection. Algorithms or nomograms that combine stage, grade, and PSA level to predict pathologic stage or prognosis (eg, progression-free probability after definitive local therapy) for the individual patient perform better than individual factors alone (9,10).

The thrust of cancer care in the new millennium is a risk-adjusted patient-specific therapy designed to maximize cancer control while minimizing the risks of complications. In the case of prostate cancer, such care requires accurate characterization of the tumor and selection of the optimal therapeutic approach from a bewildering array of alternatives: namely, deferred therapy (watchful waiting), androgen ablation, radical surgery (radical retropubic or laparoscopic prostatectomy), and various forms of radiation therapy (brachytherapy, external-beam irradiation, and combinations). Recently, focal ablative therapies (cryoablation, radiofrequency ablation, and focused ultrasound) have been added to the list of options (11,12). Imaging is becoming increasingly important in the assessment of prostate cancer because it can guide treatment selection, as well as treatment planning.

Imaging has played a critical role in prostate cancer staging since the development of radiography of the axial skeleton, but precise indications for and sensitivity and specificity of conventional imaging methods such as radionuclide bone scanning, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, ultrasonography (US), and combined positron emission tomography (PET)/CT remain under debate. The literature is replete with controversy about the value of imaging, ranging from enthusiastic endorsement to serious skepticism. Data from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor show that from 1995 to 2002, there was a national shift toward fewer imaging studies in all risk categories; the proportion of patients receiving any staging imaging test decreased by 63% in low-risk patients, by 25.9% in intermediate-risk patients, and by 11.4% in high-risk patients (13). The most precipitous decreases occurred in bone scan utilization rates, which decreased by 68.2%, 24.6%, and 11.1% in the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively. To some degree, these changes reflect the more appropriate use of imaging in response to the downward stage migration caused by PSA screening, but it is clear that some high-risk patients are proceeding to treatment without appropriate imaging evaluation (ie, work-up for metastases) (13).

Optimal use of imaging is not easy to define. However, this review will provide a multidisciplinary perspective on the optimal role of imaging in prostate cancer detection, staging, treatment planning, and follow-up by incorporating supporting evidence-based data when available.

Imaging Guidelines, Patterns of Care, and Practical Points of Technology
The selection of an imaging modality for prostate cancer should be based on the questions that need to be answered for a particular patient. The menu of available imaging options is continuously evolving in response to changes in clinical care, scientific discoveries, and technologic innovations. Transrectal US, MR imaging, CT, radionuclide bone scanning, and PET each have advantages, disadvantages, and specific indications. The Table summarizes the recommendations for imaging test utilization published in reports supported by the American Urological Association, the American Joint Committee on Cancer, and the American College of Radiology (8,14,15). In the following sections, we will review each of the major modalities for their utility in the detection of prostate cancer, local and distant staging, and tumor monitoring. We will also consider future developments that may improve the utility of each method.

Cores are typically obtained from six areas, or sextants, of the peripheral zone: left and right apex, left and right midgland, and left and right base. In addition, cores should be obtained from any sonographically suspicious (eg, hypoechoic) areas. A single biopsy session has a sensitivity of 70%–80% for the detection of cancer (16). To minimize the need for repeat biopsy sessions, many physicians obtain more cores the first time (17). There is growing evidence that 10 or 12 cores obtained from the medial and lateral apex, middle and base peripheral zones (the medial aspect of the peripheral zone seems to yield the least) of each side increases the sensitivity (15%–30% more cancers detected) (17,18). Biopsies become increasingly painful after six to eight samples, so many urologists and radiologists inject a local anesthetic (1% lidocaine without epinephrine) (19) around the nerves laterally at the junction of the seminal vesicles and base of the prostate and wait 10 minutes before obtaining samples. Separate samples of the anterior prostate (or transition zone) are usually not obtained unless previous biopsy sessions have failed to find a suspected cancer (eg, in a patient with a high PSA level, abnormal findings at digital rectal examination [DRE], and multiple negative peripheral zone biopsy specimens), or imaging with transrectal US or MR suggests an anterior cancer.

Diagnostically, transrectal US is used to measure the volume of the prostate gland (20), an important factor in computing "PSA density" (serum PSA level in nanograms per milliliter divided by the volume of the prostate in cubic centimeters). Moreover, the volume as measured with transrectal US can be used in staging and in predictive nomograms (21). Cancer, depending on its size, grade, and location, usually appears hypoechoic relative to the normal peripheral zone of the prostate (only approximately 1% are hyperechoic) (22). As a diagnostic test for cancer, transrectal US without biopsy is as accurate as DRE and complements the physical examination. Some palpable cancers are not visible at US, and some visible cancers are not palpable (23–25). With the shift toward smaller, early-stage cancers, many cancers detected at biopsy are not visible at US (low sensitivity) and many hypoechoic areas do not prove to be malignant at biopsy (low specificity); therefore, transrectal US alone, without the addition of biopsy, has limited value in the detection of cancer.

Transrectal US has been used for local staging of prostate cancer in some studies but is generally considered insufficient (Fig 1). The criteria for identifying extracapsular extension (ECE) on transrectal US scans are bulging or irregularity of the capsule adjacent to a hypoechoic lesion (Fig 2). The length of the contact of a visible lesion with the capsule is also associated with the probability of ECE (26). Seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) is heralded by a visible extension of a hypoechoic lesion at the base of the prostate into a seminal vesicle or by echogenic cancer within the normally fluid-filled seminal vesicle (27). Asymmetry of the seminal vesicles or solid hypoechoic masses within the seminal vesicles are indirect indicators of disease extension. When extraprostatic extension into the seminal vesicles is suspected, additional transrectal US-guided biopsies of the seminal vesicles can be performed.

View larger version (107K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 1a: (a) Transverse and (b) sagittal transrectal US scans in 65-year-old man with prostate cancer show possible tumor in right posterior prostatic peripheral zone as fairly well-defined hypoechoic region (arrows) abutting the capsule. Outer outline along the posterior capsule is smooth; evidence of cancer confined to the gland. Stage T2b organ-confined disease was confirmed at surgical pathologic examination.

View larger version (95K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 1b: (a) Transverse and (b) sagittal transrectal US scans in 65-year-old man with prostate cancer show possible tumor in right posterior prostatic peripheral zone as fairly well-defined hypoechoic region (arrows) abutting the capsule. Outer outline along the posterior capsule is smooth; evidence of cancer confined to the gland. Stage T2b organ-confined disease was confirmed at surgical pathologic examination.

View larger version (178K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 2: Transverse transrectal US scan of prostate in 59-year-old man with prostate cancer shows hypoechoic lesion (arrow) in left posterior peripheral zone. Irregular or spiculated margin along the capsule is evidence of ECE of tumor. Focal ECE was confirmed at surgical pathologic examination.

Transrectal US continues to play an important role in therapy. Worldwide, transrectal US is the modality of choice for directing brachytherapy seeds into the prostate (34). Cryotherapy of the prostate also requires US guidance as does high-intensity focused ultrasound, which, coupled with US targeting, is used for focal ablation of prostate cancers (36,36). New treatment approaches such as hyperthermia, photodynamic therapy, direct injection of oncolytic viruses, tumor vaccines, and gene therapy also depend on transrectal US for easy access to cancers of the prostate (37). While guidance techniques using MR imaging and other modalities are being developed, transrectal US will continue to play a major role in the management of prostate cancer, not least because of its wide availability and relatively low cost. Of course, the advantages of transrectal US (flexibility and relatively low cost) are balanced by its limited ability to define the prostate cancer in situ. The latter makes evaluation of US-guided therapies difficult, because recurrence could result either from the tumor being missed during treatment or from the inability of the treatment modality to kill the tumor.

Future developments in transrectal US include the use of microbubble contrast agents and targeted imaging. Microbubbles are relatively large, micrometer-sized, gas-filled bubbles that can be seen with exquisite sensitivity with real-time US. Indeed, by using harmonic imaging and encoded phased imaging, single microbubbles can be detected (38). Moreover, microbubbles can be coated with surface ligands, which preferentially target tumor neovascularity. Because of their large size (>1 µm), these agents are mostly confined to the vascular space and hence provide information primarily about large-vessel microvascularity but nonetheless could play a major role in improving cancer detection in the future.

CT Imaging
Although CT continues to be widely used in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, it has virtually no role in prostate cancer detection or primary tumor staging. On CT scans, the separation between the prostate and the levator ani muscle is poorly defined, and intraprostatic anatomy is not well demonstrated. However, because of increased temporal resolution, multidetector CT, when properly performed, can more clearly depict intraprostatic anatomy. The major role of CT is in the nodal staging of prostate cancer, for which it is limited. Nomograms based on clinical data (PSA level, Gleason grade, DRE findings) provide risk stratification estimates that guide the appropriate ordering of imaging tests, including CT. For instance, it is recommended that CT should be performed only in patients with a PSA level grater than 20 ng/mL, Gleason score greater than 7, and/or clinical tumor stage T3 or higher (39). This is because the criterion for detection of positive nodal disease at CT is based on node size (> 1 cm diameter), and nodal enlargement due to metastases occurs relatively late in the progression of prostate cancer (Fig 3). Since nodal metastases are often microscopic, neither CT nor standard MR imaging can be used to reliably rule them out. Reported CT sensitivity for the detection of lymph node metastases varies, but it is typically in the range of 36% (40). One study published in 1980 reported an 85% sensitivity and 67% specificity (41), while another published in 1988 reported specificity of as low as 25% (42), which reflects the changes in the presentation of prostate cancer. Oyen et al (43) found a sensitivity of 78% and a specificity of 97% by using a size criterion of 0.6 cm or larger. The same study also reported a specificity of 100% for CT combined with CT-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy. The smaller size criterion (0.6 cm) and use of fine-needle aspiration have not been widely adopted. It should be noted that the reported sensitivity and specificity of CT are highly dependent on the proportions of high-, medium-, and low-risk patients in the population studied.

View larger version (166K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 3: Transverse contrast material–enhanced CT scan of pelvis in a patient with prostate cancer and PSA level of 45 ng/mL shows enlarged left external iliac lymph node (arrow) 1.3 cm in short-axis diameter, suggestive of nodal metastatic disease.

CT can be useful as a baseline examination in high-risk patients with clinically apparent, grossly advanced local disease (gross extracapsular disease, gross SVI, or invasion of the surrounding structures, including bladder, rectum, levator ani muscles, or pelvic floor). These patients will almost always fall above the cutoff recommendations for the appropriate use of CT imaging on the basis of DRE findings, PSA level, and Gleason grade; they will also be at risk for lymph node metastases, which may be assessed concurrently (Fig 4).

View larger version (137K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 4: Unenhanced CT scan in 78-year-old man with prostate cancer, Gleason score of 3 + 4 at biopsy, PSA level of 21 ng/mL, and palpable tumor shows enlarged prostate with evidence of gross tumor ECE (arrow) along left posterolateral margin of the gland.

CT has been used to monitor bone metastases, but bone scanning and MR imaging are superior to CT in the diagnosis of bone metastases (52,53). Lytic and blastic bone metastases will commonly be visible at CT, however, and should not be overlooked. CT scans may be normal in cases of metastatic disease detected at radionuclide bone scanning, but CT allows more accurate distinction of malignant from benign causes of increased radioisotope uptake at bone scanning (54). Individual osseous metastases are more accurately defined as individual lesions on a CT scan than on a bone scan and, therefore, clear changes in osseous lesions seen at CT can be used to monitor responses to systemic therapy. Caution should be exercised in interpreting all osteoblastic lesions as metastases, as CT typically depicts the effects of tumor cells on normal osteoblasts rather than directly reflecting metastases, and bone changes in response to therapy may lag behind therapeutic effects.

MR Imaging
MR imaging can be used for prostate cancer detection, although it is recommended only if cancer is suspected despite negative transrectal US and biopsy findings. MR imaging can also aid in local and distant staging. Although it is a highly versatile technique, MR imaging has gone through several phases of popularity. Overall, its use has not shown a marked increase in recent years, but at centers that offer the technique the number of prostate MR examinations performed per month ranges from one to 150, which reflects a lack of consensus about the still-evolving role of this modality.

At present, optimal MR imaging of prostate cancer for detection and local staging requires the use of an endorectal coil in conjunction with a pelvic phased-array coil on a mid- to high-field-strength magnet. Thin (3-mm) sections and a small (14-cm) field of view are required to obtain submillimeter-resolution T2-weighted images necessary for local staging (55). The use of an endorectal coil at 3 T is more controversial, as the improved signal-to-noise ratio of the high-field-strength systems can compensate for the lack of signal from an endorectal coil, providing images of a similar quality to those obtained with 1.5-T endorectal MR imaging. However, it is expected, though not yet proven, that the use of an endorectal coil at 3 T will allow better prostate cancer detection. The detection of prostate cancer depends on the type of imaging sequence used. On T1-weighted images, the prostate demonstrates homogeneous medium signal intensity and tumors are impossible to discern. On T2-weighted images, cancer most commonly demonstrates decreased signal intensity relative to the high-signal-intensity normal peripheral zone (56) (Fig 5).

View larger version (154K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 5a: Images in 45-year-old man with prostate cancer stage pT2b and presurgical PSA level of 5.1 ng/mL. (a) Transverse, (b) coronal, and (c) sagittal unenhanced T2-weighted fast spin-echo (repetition time msec/echo time msec of 5000/96[effective]) MR images demonstrate a low-signal-intensity area (arrow) in the peripheral zone of right posterolateral midgland and apex. Tumor appears confined to the gland, as outer margin in all planes is smooth.

View larger version (150K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 5b: Images in 45-year-old man with prostate cancer stage pT2b and presurgical PSA level of 5.1 ng/mL. (a) Transverse, (b) coronal, and (c) sagittal unenhanced T2-weighted fast spin-echo (repetition time msec/echo time msec of 5000/96[effective]) MR images demonstrate a low-signal-intensity area (arrow) in the peripheral zone of right posterolateral midgland and apex. Tumor appears confined to the gland, as outer margin in all planes is smooth.

View larger version (159K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 5c: Images in 45-year-old man with prostate cancer stage pT2b and presurgical PSA level of 5.1 ng/mL. (a) Transverse, (b) coronal, and (c) sagittal unenhanced T2-weighted fast spin-echo (repetition time msec/echo time msec of 5000/96[effective]) MR images demonstrate a low-signal-intensity area (arrow) in the peripheral zone of right posterolateral midgland and apex. Tumor appears confined to the gland, as outer margin in all planes is smooth.

View larger version (161K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 6a: Images in 54-year-old man with preoperative PSA level of 12.6 ng/mL and biopsy Gleason score of 3 + 3. Prostate was normal (stage T1c) at clinical examination. Unenhanced (a) transverse and (b) sagittal T2-weighted fast spin-echo (5000/96 [effective]) MR images show large tumor (t) in the transition zone and tumor bulging with interruption of very low-signal-intensity anterior fibromuscular stroma by slightly higher signal intensity tumor, suggestive of anterior ECE (arrow). (c) Transverse gross pathologic whole-mount specimen. Outer linear margin defines border of tumor predominantly Gleason grade 3 with established anterior ECE (arrows), stage pT3a. Internal smaller marked regions define Gleason grade 4 components. (Hematoxylin-eosin stain.)

View larger version (147K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 6b: Images in 54-year-old man with preoperative PSA level of 12.6 ng/mL and biopsy Gleason score of 3 + 3. Prostate was normal (stage T1c) at clinical examination. Unenhanced (a) transverse and (b) sagittal T2-weighted fast spin-echo (5000/96 [effective]) MR images show large tumor (t) in the transition zone and tumor bulging with interruption of very low-signal-intensity anterior fibromuscular stroma by slightly higher signal intensity tumor, suggestive of anterior ECE (arrow). (c) Transverse gross pathologic whole-mount specimen. Outer linear margin defines border of tumor predominantly Gleason grade 3 with established anterior ECE (arrows), stage pT3a. Internal smaller marked regions define Gleason grade 4 components. (Hematoxylin-eosin stain.)

View larger version (89K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 6c: Images in 54-year-old man with preoperative PSA level of 12.6 ng/mL and biopsy Gleason score of 3 + 3. Prostate was normal (stage T1c) at clinical examination. Unenhanced (a) transverse and (b) sagittal T2-weighted fast spin-echo (5000/96 [effective]) MR images show large tumor (t) in the transition zone and tumor bulging with interruption of very low-signal-intensity anterior fibromuscular stroma by slightly higher signal intensity tumor, suggestive of anterior ECE (arrow). (c) Transverse gross pathologic whole-mount specimen. Outer linear margin defines border of tumor predominantly Gleason grade 3 with established anterior ECE (arrows), stage pT3a. Internal smaller marked regions define Gleason grade 4 components. (Hematoxylin-eosin stain.)

MR imaging also permits detection of the presence and location of ECE and SVI, and its use in staging prostate cancer is gaining acceptance at select centers around the world (64–66). On endorectal MR images, criteria for ECE include asymmetry of the neurovascular bundle, tumor envelopment of the neurovascular bundle, an angulated prostate gland contour, an irregular or spiculated margin, obliteration of the rectoprostatic angle, capsular retraction, a tumor-capsule interface greater than 1 cm, and a breech of the capsule with evidence of direct tumor extension (65,67,68) (Fig 7). In the evaluation of extracapsular invasion, transverse sections are essential and a combination of transverse and coronal images is ideal. The addition of sagittal images facilitates evaluation of tumor located at the apex and base.

View larger version (52K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 7a: Images in 58-year-old man with prostate cancer clinical stage T2a. (a, b) Transverse unenhanced T2-weighted fast spin-echo (5000/96 [effective]) MR images with corresponding spectroscopic data show large low-signal-intensity lesion in the right side of peripheral zone with a focal bulge (arrowhead) and obliteration of the rectoprostatic angle (arrow) in addition to broad (>1 cm) capsular contact. Findings are indicative of ECE, which was proved at surgery (stage pT3a). Abnormal spectra (elevated choline and decreased citrate level) suspicious (SC) or very suspicious (VC) for prostate cancer are seen in voxels containing tumor (*). A = artifact, ED = ejaculatory duct, H = healthy prostate tissue, ND = nondiagnostic. (c) Corresponding pathology step section shows tumor (outlined) and site of established ECE (arrow). (Hematoxylin-eosin stain.)

View larger version (50K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 7b: Images in 58-year-old man with prostate cancer clinical stage T2a. (a, b) Transverse unenhanced T2-weighted fast spin-echo (5000/96 [effective]) MR images with corresponding spectroscopic data show large low-signal-intensity lesion in the right side of peripheral zone with a focal bulge (arrowhead) and obliteration of the rectoprostatic angle (arrow) in addition to broad (>1 cm) capsular contact. Findings are indicative of ECE, which was proved at surgery (stage pT3a). Abnormal spectra (elevated choline and decreased citrate level) suspicious (SC) or very suspicious (VC) for prostate cancer are seen in voxels containing tumor (*). A = artifact, ED = ejaculatory duct, H = healthy prostate tissue, ND = nondiagnostic. (c) Corresponding pathology step section shows tumor (outlined) and site of established ECE (arrow). (Hematoxylin-eosin stain.)

View larger version (100K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 7c: Images in 58-year-old man with prostate cancer clinical stage T2a. (a, b) Transverse unenhanced T2-weighted fast spin-echo (5000/96 [effective]) MR images with corresponding spectroscopic data show large low-signal-intensity lesion in the right side of peripheral zone with a focal bulge (arrowhead) and obliteration of the rectoprostatic angle (arrow) in addition to broad (>1 cm) capsular contact. Findings are indicative of ECE, which was proved at surgery (stage pT3a). Abnormal spectra (elevated choline and decreased citrate level) suspicious (SC) or very suspicious (VC) for prostate cancer are seen in voxels containing tumor (*). A = artifact, ED = ejaculatory duct, H = healthy prostate tissue, ND = nondiagnostic. (c) Corresponding pathology step section shows tumor (outlined) and site of established ECE (arrow). (Hematoxylin-eosin stain.)

View larger version (159K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 8a: Unenhanced T2-weighted fast spin-echo (5000/96 [effective]) endorectal coil pelvic MR images in 61-year-old man with clinical stage T2a prostate cancer. (a) Transverse image shows a dominant tumor (arrow) at the right base; loss of normal contour and irregular bulging are evidence of extracapsular disease. There is direct tumor extension into both seminal vesicles (arrowheads) on (b) transverse and (c) corresponding coronal images, seen as mild enlargement of the involved seminal vesicles and low-signal-intensity tissue replacing normal thin walls and obliterating the lumen (compare to preserved vesicle architecture laterally). Note prominent apical veins (*). (d) Sagittal image shows SVI (arrow) and adjacent tumor extending into extracapsular space between urinary bladder and seminal vesicle.

View larger version (171K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 8b: Unenhanced T2-weighted fast spin-echo (5000/96 [effective]) endorectal coil pelvic MR images in 61-year-old man with clinical stage T2a prostate cancer. (a) Transverse image shows a dominant tumor (arrow) at the right base; loss of normal contour and irregular bulging are evidence of extracapsular disease. There is direct tumor extension into both seminal vesicles (arrowheads) on (b) transverse and (c) corresponding coronal images, seen as mild enlargement of the involved seminal vesicles and low-signal-intensity tissue replacing normal thin walls and obliterating the lumen (compare to preserved vesicle architecture laterally). Note prominent apical veins (*). (d) Sagittal image shows SVI (arrow) and adjacent tumor extending into extracapsular space between urinary bladder and seminal vesicle.

View larger version (166K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 8c: Unenhanced T2-weighted fast spin-echo (5000/96 [effective]) endorectal coil pelvic MR images in 61-year-old man with clinical stage T2a prostate cancer. (a) Transverse image shows a dominant tumor (arrow) at the right base; loss of normal contour and irregular bulging are evidence of extracapsular disease. There is direct tumor extension into both seminal vesicles (arrowheads) on (b) transverse and (c) corresponding coronal images, seen as mild enlargement of the involved seminal vesicles and low-signal-intensity tissue replacing normal thin walls and obliterating the lumen (compare to preserved vesicle architecture laterally). Note prominent apical veins (*). (d) Sagittal image shows SVI (arrow) and adjacent tumor extending into extracapsular space between urinary bladder and seminal vesicle.

View larger version (157K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 8d: Unenhanced T2-weighted fast spin-echo (5000/96 [effective]) endorectal coil pelvic MR images in 61-year-old man with clinical stage T2a prostate cancer. (a) Transverse image shows a dominant tumor (arrow) at the right base; loss of normal contour and irregular bulging are evidence of extracapsular disease. There is direct tumor extension into both seminal vesicles (arrowheads) on (b) transverse and (c) corresponding coronal images, seen as mild enlargement of the involved seminal vesicles and low-signal-intensity tissue replacing normal thin walls and obliterating the lumen (compare to preserved vesicle architecture laterally). Note prominent apical veins (*). (d) Sagittal image shows SVI (arrow) and adjacent tumor extending into extracapsular space between urinary bladder and seminal vesicle.

View larger version (15K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 9a: Graphs show receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves in detection of ECE for base model with and without endorectal MR imaging findings in (a) patients whose MR imaging studies were evaluated by genitourinary radiologists and (b) patients whose MR imaging studies were evaluated by general body radiologists. Base model included PSA level, Gleason score, greatest percentage of cancer in all core biopsy specimens, percentage of cancer-positive core specimens in all core biopsy specimens, presence of perineural invasion, and tumor clinical stage. Base model with endorectal MR findings included MR findings with all other variables. Predicted probability was calculated with jackknife method. Diagonal line indicates area under ROC curve of 0.500. (Graphs courtesy of Michael Mullerad, MD, Department of Urology, Bnai-Zion Medical Center, Haifa, Israel.)

View larger version (15K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 9b: Graphs show receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves in detection of ECE for base model with and without endorectal MR imaging findings in (a) patients whose MR imaging studies were evaluated by genitourinary radiologists and (b) patients whose MR imaging studies were evaluated by general body radiologists. Base model included PSA level, Gleason score, greatest percentage of cancer in all core biopsy specimens, percentage of cancer-positive core specimens in all core biopsy specimens, presence of perineural invasion, and tumor clinical stage. Base model with endorectal MR findings included MR findings with all other variables. Predicted probability was calculated with jackknife method. Diagonal line indicates area under ROC curve of 0.500. (Graphs courtesy of Michael Mullerad, MD, Department of Urology, Bnai-Zion Medical Center, Haifa, Israel.)

In the evaluation of lymph node metastases, unenhanced MR imaging has no advantage over CT. However, promising results have been reported for the use of ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide particles as an aid to diagnosing lymph node metastasis at MR imaging. This technique is discussed later in the Future Prospects for MR Imaging section.

MR Spectroscopic Imaging
Prostate MR spectroscopic imaging adds specificity to MR imaging in the detection of prostate cancer and allows assessment of tumor metabolism. MR spectroscopic imaging displays the relative concentrations of chemical metabolites within a small volume of interest or voxel. In vivo proton spectroscopy of the prostate in cancer detection is aimed at determining the levels or concentrations of the metabolites citrate, creatine, and choline, making use of the differences between the normal prostate gland tissue, which contains (secretes) citrate, and prostate cancer, which shows high levels of choline and often diminished citrate levels (Figs 7, 10). The differences in the concentrations of metabolites are believed to be due to enhancement of the phospholipid cell membrane turnover associated with tumor cell proliferation, increased cellularity, and growth.

View larger version (52K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 10a: Transverse unenhanced T2-weighted fast spin-echo (5000/96 [effective]) MR image and corresponding proton MR spectroscopic imaging voxels. (a) Section in midgland shows healthy (H, also in b) prostate tissue throughout peripheral zone as evidenced by high signal intensity on T2-weighted image with corresponding spectra demonstrating normal high citrate peaks (eg, arrow) and low or absent choline peaks (eg, arrowhead). (b) Adjacent inferior section shows a tumor focus in left peripheral zone, seen as low-signal-intensity area (arrow) within the surrounding high-signal intensity peripheral zone. * = Tumor-containing voxels. There is corresponding increased choline peak (Ch) and decreased citrate peak (Cit), evidence of cancerous tumor. SC = suspicious for cancer, VC = very suspicious for cancer.

View larger version (52K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 10b: Transverse unenhanced T2-weighted fast spin-echo (5000/96 [effective]) MR image and corresponding proton MR spectroscopic imaging voxels. (a) Section in midgland shows healthy (H, also in b) prostate tissue throughout peripheral zone as evidenced by high signal intensity on T2-weighted image with corresponding spectra demonstrating normal high citrate peaks (eg, arrow) and low or absent choline peaks (eg, arrowhead). (b) Adjacent inferior section shows a tumor focus in left peripheral zone, seen as low-signal-intensity area (arrow) within the surrounding high-signal intensity peripheral zone. * = Tumor-containing voxels. There is corresponding increased choline peak (Ch) and decreased citrate peak (Cit), evidence of cancerous tumor. SC = suspicious for cancer, VC = very suspicious for cancer.

While combined use of MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging is typically used to evaluate clinically high-risk cancers, it may also prove useful for evaluating clinically low-risk cancers to assess suitability for deferred therapy. An initial retrospective study of 220 patients with prostate cancer (82) found that in the prediction of insignificant cancer (pathologically defined as organ-confined tumor 0.5 cm³ or less in volume with no element of Gleason grade 4 or 5 cancer), a nomogram model incorporating MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging findings with clinical variables yielded an area under the receiver operating characterisitc curve of 0.854 and was significantly more accurate than previously published nomogram models that incorporated only clinical variables (P < .001). New nomograms incorporating MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging data with clinical variables for the prediction of very low-risk cancer are being designed.

Findings from proton high-resolution magic-angle spinning nuclear MR spectroscopy and histopathologic examination can be correlated with preoperative MR imaging and three-dimensional (3D) MR spectroscopic imaging to reveal spectral patterns associated with mixtures of different prostate tissue types and cancer grades, as well as molecular markers (83). Preliminary evidence obtained from prostate cancer tissue profiles supports the role of key molecular markers as a way to improve histologic prediction of prostate cancer aggressiveness. Examples include cellular proliferation markers, apoptosis markers, a variety of serum biomarkers, and molecules associated with key signal transduction pathways (35–37,40,84). For example, the tumor cell proliferation marker Ki-67 has shown utility in the prediction of tumor progression, treatment outcome, and biochemical recurrence (41,42,85). Research is underway in which MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging findings will be correlated with a variety of molecular markers identified at high-resolution magic-angle spinning spectroscopy and immunohistochemistry, including Ki-67, p27/Kip1, PTEN, phosphorylated AKT (an activated oncogene downstream of PTEN), Bax, and Bcl-2.

To date, combined use of MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging has been limited to relatively few centers, but robust commercial MR spectroscopic imaging acquisition and display systems are now available. A multicenter American College of Radiology Imaging Network trial for tumor detection using MR imaging alone and MR imaging plus MR spectroscopic imaging with pathologic correlation has been completed, and the data are soon to be analyzed.

Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging
Like other tumors, prostate cancers induce angiogenesis, which can be used as a diagnostic marker of disease. The normal prostate is a vascular organ, and so rapid injections with rapid scanning are needed to detect angiogenesis in a lesion. Typically, a full dose (0.1 mmol/kg) of gadolinium chelate is injected at 3 mL/sec, and serial 3D acquisitions are obtained every 2–5 seconds through the prostate. Cancers often demonstrate early nodular enhancement before the rest of the parenchyma and early washout of signal intensity. This pattern is highly predictive of prostate cancer but is not pathognomonic. Some prostate cancers are mildly or moderately hypervascular and thus are not detectable with this method. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging has been shown to have sensitivity of 73% and specificity of 81% in defining prostate cancers (86). A recent study found that dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging at 3 T had comparable sensitivity (73%) and specificity (77%) in prostate cancer localization (87). Combining dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and 3D proton spectroscopy may prove helpful in tumor localization when T2-weighted images are inconclusive for a tumor focus (Fig 11). The analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging remains controversial. Relatively simple techniques such as measuring the relative peak enhancement (88) appear to work equally well with more complex methods such as two compartment models (89). For the field to move forward, however, some standardized analytic tools are required so that studies from different institutions can be directly compared.

View larger version (165K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 11a: (a) T2-weighted 3-T endorectal MR image demonstrates diffuse low signal intensity within peripheral zone. Finding is nonspecific. (b) Color map (Ktrans map) from dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and (c) spectroscopic map (choline-to-citrate ratio) demonstrate abnormality in the left side of the gland. Surgically confirmed Gleason score 8 adenocarcinoma.

View larger version (88K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 11b: (a) T2-weighted 3-T endorectal MR image demonstrates diffuse low signal intensity within peripheral zone. Finding is nonspecific. (b) Color map (Ktrans map) from dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and (c) spectroscopic map (choline-to-citrate ratio) demonstrate abnormality in the left side of the gland. Surgically confirmed Gleason score 8 adenocarcinoma.

View larger version (122K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 11c: (a) T2-weighted 3-T endorectal MR image demonstrates diffuse low signal intensity within peripheral zone. Finding is nonspecific. (b) Color map (Ktrans map) from dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and (c) spectroscopic map (choline-to-citrate ratio) demonstrate abnormality in the left side of the gland. Surgically confirmed Gleason score 8 adenocarcinoma.

Another prospect for the future is improved detection of nodal disease with the use of lymphotropic superparamagnetic nanoparticles as a contrast agent at MR imaging. The nanoparticles are taken up by circulating macrophages, which then traffic to the normal nodal tissue. The inability of malignant nodes to take up the agent provides tissue contrast within the lymph node and allows detection of metastases, even in nodes that do not meet the standard size criteria for metastasis (91). In a study in which 71.4% of nodes with histopathologically detected metastases were of normal size, sensitivity and specificity for the detection of metastasis on a node-by-node basis were 35.4% and 90.4%, respectively, for conventional MR imaging and 90.5% and 97.8%, respectively, for MR imaging with lymphotropic superparamagnetic nanoparticles; on a patient-by-patient basis, MR imaging with lymphotropic superparamagnetic nanoparticles had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 95.7% (92). Since the incidence of lymph node metastasis in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer appears to be only 5% or less, it has been suggested that a combination of conventional MR imaging, which offers high negative predictive value for lymph node metastasis and anatomic information useful for treatment planning, and the standard staging nomogram, which has high accuracy in predicting lymph node metastasis, might be used to select patients for MR with lymphotropic superparamagnetic nanoparticles (30,93).

Radionuclide Bone Scanning
Radionuclide bone scanning has no role in prostate cancer detection or local staging; however, bone metastases are a common complication of prostate cancer, and bone scanning continues to be the mainstay of diagnosis of initial spread of cancer to bone. Evidence-based guidelines on the use of imaging in assessing the risk of distant spread of prostate cancer have been available since 1993, when it was proposed that routine bone scans should not be used for patients with PSA below 10 ng/mL (94). In 1997, O'Dowd et al (39) reconfirmed the recommendation that bone scans should be obtained routinely only for patients with PSA level greater than 10 ng/mL. Use of the bone scan has been modified in recent years by the measurement of PSA level. If the PSA level is less than 10 ng/mL (95), chances of a positive bone scan are less than 1%. When the PSA level is 10–50 ng/mL, the incidence of a positive bone scan increases to about 10%, and with PSA level above 50 ng/mL, it increases to about 50%. In our practice, we generally reserve bone scanning for patients with PSA level greater than 10 ng/mL.

The radionuclide bone scan is simple to obtain and is a sensitive method for detecting osseous metastases, especially osteoblastic metastases. The most common appearance is of a focal area of increased tracer uptake, usually in the axial skeleton, related to host osteoblastic bone response to tumor invasion (Fig 12). Less commonly, an area of reduced uptake may be present, which reflects extensive damage to bone with little osteoblastic response. Bone scans are more reliable than symptoms alone in the evaluation of bone metastatic disease, and in one series, 34% of asymptomatic patients had abnormal scans (96). In the evaluation of 1403 patients with prostate cancer, bone scans were 28% more sensitive than conventional radiographs in detecting metastatic skeletal lesions (96).

View larger version (90K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 12: 99mTc methylene diphosphonate bone scans in patient with prostate cancer and markedly elevated PSA level (>100 ng/mL). Anterior and posterior projections show numerous foci of increased uptake in the axial skeleton, indicating widespread osseous metastatic disease.

View larger version (174K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 13a: Images in 56-year-old man after radical retropubic prostatectomy with rising PSA level at 10 ng/mL. (a) Transverse unenhanced T2-weighted fast spin-echo (5000/96 [effective]) MR image shows ovoid low-signal-intensity lesion (arrow) suspicious for bone metastasis in left inferior pubic ramus. Bone scan at that time was normal (not shown). (b) Anterior coronal image from a bone scan 3 months later shows focal increased tumor activity (arrow) as confirmatory evidence of metastasis.

View larger version (160K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 13b: Images in 56-year-old man after radical retropubic prostatectomy with rising PSA level at 10 ng/mL. (a) Transverse unenhanced T2-weighted fast spin-echo (5000/96 [effective]) MR image shows ovoid low-signal-intensity lesion (arrow) suspicious for bone metastasis in left inferior pubic ramus. Bone scan at that time was normal (not shown). (b) Anterior coronal image from a bone scan 3 months later shows focal increased tumor activity (arrow) as confirmatory evidence of metastasis.

Single photon emission computed tomographic (SPECT) studies of the skeleton have been shown to be more sensitive in the detection of metastatic disease than planar images alone and are usually performed when symptoms or clinical suspicion for disease are present, particularly bone pain. This technique has particular utility in the evaluation of the spine in patients with low back pain who present for evaluation of possible metastatic disease. Sites of abnormal uptake may be localized to the vertebral body or posterior elements, leading to other radiologic techniques for confirmation. Uptake in facet joints, in the absence of signs of metastatic disease on radiographs, may indicate active arthritis as the cause of a patient's back pain (100,101). Combined SPECT/CT, a recent development, adds anatomic information to SPECT, and its incremental value to SPECT is yet to be evaluated (Fig 14).

View larger version (49K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 14a: Images in 67-year-old man with Gleason score 8 prostate cancer. At diagnosis, the local tumor had spread outside the gland and only medical treatment (finasteride) was given. After treatment, when PSA level was 2.6 ng/mL, (a) transverse, (b) sagittal, and (c) coronal SPECT 99mTc methylene diphosphonate bone scans demonstrated uptake in fourth lumbar vertebra suggestive of metastasis. After fusion of a and (d) CT scans, (e) resulting SPECT/CT image shows uptake confined to region of L4-5 vertebrae facet joint, indicating degenerative changes rather than metastasis. Subsequent MR images were negative for metastasis.

View larger version (66K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 14b: Images in 67-year-old man with Gleason score 8 prostate cancer. At diagnosis, the local tumor had spread outside the gland and only medical treatment (finasteride) was given. After treatment, when PSA level was 2.6 ng/mL, (a) transverse, (b) sagittal, and (c) coronal SPECT 99mTc methylene diphosphonate bone scans demonstrated uptake in fourth lumbar vertebra suggestive of metastasis. After fusion of a and (d) CT scans, (e) resulting SPECT/CT image shows uptake confined to region of L4-5 vertebrae facet joint, indicating degenerative changes rather than metastasis. Subsequent MR images were negative for metastasis.

View larger version (71K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 14c: Images in 67-year-old man with Gleason score 8 prostate cancer. At diagnosis, the local tumor had spread outside the gland and only medical treatment (finasteride) was given. After treatment, when PSA level was 2.6 ng/mL, (a) transverse, (b) sagittal, and (c) coronal SPECT 99mTc methylene diphosphonate bone scans demonstrated uptake in fourth lumbar vertebra suggestive of metastasis. After fusion of a and (d) CT scans, (e) resulting SPECT/CT image shows uptake confined to region of L4-5 vertebrae facet joint, indicating degenerative changes rather than metastasis. Subsequent MR images were negative for metastasis.

View larger version (94K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 14d: Images in 67-year-old man with Gleason score 8 prostate cancer. At diagnosis, the local tumor had spread outside the gland and only medical treatment (finasteride) was given. After treatment, when PSA level was 2.6 ng/mL, (a) transverse, (b) sagittal, and (c) coronal SPECT 99mTc methylene diphosphonate bone scans demonstrated uptake in fourth lumbar vertebra suggestive of metastasis. After fusion of a and (d) CT scans, (e) resulting SPECT/CT image shows uptake confined to region of L4-5 vertebrae facet joint, indicating degenerative changes rather than metastasis. Subsequent MR images were negative for metastasis.

View larger version (108K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 14e: Images in 67-year-old man with Gleason score 8 prostate cancer. At diagnosis, the local tumor had spread outside the gland and only medical treatment (finasteride) was given. After treatment, when PSA level was 2.6 ng/mL, (a) transverse, (b) sagittal, and (c) coronal SPECT 99mTc methylene diphosphonate bone scans demonstrated uptake in fourth lumbar vertebra suggestive of metastasis. After fusion of a and (d) CT scans, (e) resulting SPECT/CT image shows uptake confined to region of L4-5 vertebrae facet joint, indicating degenerative changes rather than metastasis. Subsequent MR images were negative for metastasis.

In the evaluation of prostate cancer, several studies have reported a disappointingly low sensitivity of FDG PET for tumor detection. Furthermore, it has been reported that there is no difference in tracer uptake between benign prostate hyperplasia and prostate carcinoma (113–116). In support of the value of FDG PET is one study that reported an 83% sensitivity for the detection of primary prostate cancer; the study was performed in patients with advanced clinical stage and more aggressive cancers (117). In the evaluation of pelvic lymph node metastases, Shreve et al (118) found that FDG PET was not helpful owing to excreted tracer in the urinary bladder that caused obscuration of the pelvis. In another study (119), the sensitivity of PET for the detection of nodal metastases appeared to be greater than that of CT, but the difference was not statistically significant. Until recently, one of the limitations of PET for prostate cancer has been the use of filtered back-projection algorithms for image reconstruction, which causes streak artifacts arising from the FDG-filled bladder and, hence, poor image quality. Newer iterative image reconstruction techniques, with noise-reduced segmented attenuation correction, may help to eliminate this problem. New reports have shown that primary prostate cancer can be imaged with FDG PET and that the image quality is significantly improved with iterative image reconstruction (120). Use of PET/CT units results in improved attenuation correction of the PET emission data, which speeds up the acquisition of a PET scan substantially (by approximately 30%) relative to dedicated PET scanners utilizing transmission rod sources. Particularly relevant to prostate cancer is the capacity of PET/CT to demonstrate tumor location in the prostate bed (Fig 15) and to better assess pelvic lymph node disease. Furthermore, combined PET/CT allows differentiation between tumor and tortuous ureter or bowel in the midabdomen or pelvis (121). In the evaluation of bone metastasis, precise localization of metastatic disease affords new treatment options (bone ablation) and more precise treatment follow-up (Fig 16).

View larger version (133K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 15a: FDG PET/CT scans of prostate cancer. (a) Transverse unenhanced CT scan shows enlarged prostate with no clearly identifiable tumor. (b) PET gray-scale scan and (c) combined PET/CT scan with FDG activity overlay at corresponding level show increased activity in prostate tissue (arrow), representing tumor localized to left side of the gland, and separate activity within adjacent urinary bladder (arrowhead).

View larger version (75K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 15b: FDG PET/CT scans of prostate cancer. (a) Transverse unenhanced CT scan shows enlarged prostate with no clearly identifiable tumor. (b) PET gray-scale scan and (c) combined PET/CT scan with FDG activity overlay at corresponding level show increased activity in prostate tissue (arrow), representing tumor localized to left side of the gland, and separate activity within adjacent urinary bladder (arrowhead).

View larger version (70K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 15c: FDG PET/CT scans of prostate cancer. (a) Transverse unenhanced CT scan shows enlarged prostate with no clearly identifiable tumor. (b) PET gray-scale scan and (c) combined PET/CT scan with FDG activity overlay at corresponding level show increased activity in prostate tissue (arrow), representing tumor localized to left side of the gland, and separate activity within adjacent urinary bladder (arrowhead).

View larger version (103K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 16a: PET/CT scans of osseous metastasis in the posterior element of thoracic spine. (a) Coronal FDG PET scan shows focal increased activity in left posterior spine (arrow). (b) Transverse PET/CT overlay scan shows that focal lesion corresponds to metabolically active bone metastasis in the posterior vertebra (arrow).

View larger version (52K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 16b: PET/CT scans of osseous metastasis in the posterior element of thoracic spine. (a) Coronal FDG PET scan shows focal increased activity in left posterior spine (arrow). (b) Transverse PET/CT overlay scan shows that focal lesion corresponds to metabolically active bone metastasis in the posterior vertebra (arrow).

Another important discovery is that the use of multiple tracer studies in the same patient frequently displays the heterogeneity of tumor biology. Patients who receive ¹¹C-methionine and FDG scans on the same day may display metastases that are positive for both tracers, ¹¹C-methionine only, or FDG only (125). Such features indicate changes in tumor biology as the tumor adapts to each sanctuary site.

In search of a noninvasive method to quantify androgen receptors at PET, ¹⁸F fluorodihydrotestosterone has recently been studied in patients with metastatic prostate cancer. The mismatch between FDG and ¹⁸F fluorodihydrotestosterone findings suggests the variations in androgen dependence of the different sites of disease. Histologic confirmation of this hypothesis has not yet been performed. Therefore, the optimal choice of radiotracers for tumor diagnosis and follow-up depends on the organ site. Nevertheless, the concept of using PET with multiple radiotracers that answer different questions is likely to become an important thrust in the future of metabolic prostate cancer imaging.

In the future, molecular imaging will influence prostate cancer more and more as new tracers are developed, including antibodies that target important prostate-specific molecules such as prostate-specific membrane antigen. Gene expression imaging and imaging of cell trafficking during adoptive immunotherapy are on the near horizon.

	USE OF IMAGING IN TREATMENT PLANNING

TOP ABSTRACT CARE PATTERNS AND REVIEW... USE OF IMAGING IN... SUMMARY ESSENTIALS References

 
Imaging plays an important role in planning treatment both for surgery and radiation. In this section, we consider the specific roles for imaging in guiding treatment selection and planning.

Imaging prior to Surgery
Because the size and shape of the prostate varies so greatly and the location and extent of cancer are so difficult to determine with DRE, radical prostatectomy is a particularly challenging operation (126). Removing the prostate is not in itself difficult, but complete removal of the cancer, with negative surgical margins and without damage to the surrounding structures crucial for recovery of normal urinary and sexual function after the operation, is extremely challenging (127,128). As much as with any surgical procedure, adverse results—positive surgical margins, perioperative complications, urinary incontinence, and erectile dysfunction—vary with surgical experience and technique (129–131). The information from MR imaging may help surgeons plan a safer, more effective operation that removes the cancer completely (with negative surgical margins) while preserving periprostatic tissues important for recovery of urinary and sexual function.

A study (132) of 76 patients showed that preoperative reviews of endorectal MR images significantly improved the accuracy of the surgeon's decision to preserve or resect the neurovascular bundle(s) at radical prostatectomy (P < .01). Twenty-four percent of patients had a more aggressive surgical plan when MR images were reviewed together with the clinical data. For 165 neurovascular bundles, the surgeon judged that resection was definitely not necessary; MR imaging helped confirm that decision for 138 of these neurovascular bundles (84%), and the confirmation was correct in 96% (133 of 138) of the cases. In 36 high-risk patients (ie, patients with 75% probability of ECE), MR findings changed the surgical plan for 28 (78%) neurovascular bundles; the change was appropriate in 26 (93%) cases (132). Thus, MR imaging improved surgical planning for high-risk patients and appropriately supported the decision not to resect neurovascular bundles in other patients.

MR imaging may help predict substantial intraoperative blood loss, as the prominence of apical periprostatic veins on MR images was positively associated with blood loss in one series (133) (Figs 10, 17). In another study, a multivariable analysis of risk factors showed that the length of the membranous urethra on coronal endorectal MR images was an independent predictor for the time to recovery of urinary continence (134). Patients with longer than average (14-mm) membranous urethra lengths experienced a more rapid return to complete continence.

View larger version (159K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 17: Coronal unenhanced T2-weighted fast spin-echo (5000/96 [effective]) MR image at level of membranous urethra shows very small apical veins between lateral capsular margin of the prostate (black arrowheads) and levator ani muscles (white arrowheads). Contrast this to the appearance of large periprostatic veins in Figure 9.

Imaging in Radiation Oncology
The planning, delivery, and verification of radiation therapy are based on contemporary and evolving imaging techniques. Advances in imaging technology and the development of sophisticated radiation dose calculation algorithms have led to remarkable improvements in tumor localization and generation of dose-distribution plans that conform to the anatomic configuration of tumor targets. The development of image-based computer treatment planning systems during the 1980s allowed CT image data to be incorporated into radiation therapy treatment plans, heralding the beginning of modern 3D conformal radiation therapy (95,136). The 3D conformal radiation therapy approach is composed of a series of computer-based procedures to define target and nontarget tissue structures from patient-specific 3D image data sets, the design of treatment portals by using beam's-eye-view displays, calculation and display of 3D dose distributions, and the analysis and evaluation of structure-specific dose-volume data. In the treatment of prostate cancer, the use of conventional radiation therapy dose levels of 65–70 Gy administered with traditional two-dimensional planning and delivery treatment techniques has had limited success in controlling localized disease. By improving the conformality of dose distribution, the 3D conformal radiation therapy approach has allowed significant increases in tumor dose to levels beyond those feasible with conventional two-dimensional radiation therapy, without a concomitant increase in normal tissue complications.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) developed during the past decade is an advanced mode of conformal radiation therapy that improves the ability to deliver high doses to the prostate with enhanced precision (137–139). Treatment planning is based on inverse planning algorithms and iterative computer-driven optimization to generate treatment fields with varying radiation intensities within each beam. Combinations of intensity-modulated fields produce custom-tailored conformal dose distributions around the tumor, with steep dose gradients at the transition to normal tissues. In prostate cancer, IMRT has resulted in reduced rectal toxicity and has permitted tumor dose escalation to previously unattainable levels (up to 86 Gy). Both retrospective and prospective randomized trials support the concept that higher dose levels delivered with conformal approaches significantly improve disease-free survival (140–142). This approach is an example of how prostate cancer will be treated with external-beam irradiation in the years ahead.

Traditionally, verification of treatment delivery has been based on conventional radiographs or electronic portal images obtained while the patient is positioned on the treatment couch by using bony anatomic landmarks as reference points. However, the increased precision of treatment planning and delivery has required the development of new, advanced imaging systems for verification that are applied before or even during treatment. The goal is to delineate the position of the targeted tissue and to make any necessary corrections for deviations related not only to patient positioning but also to organ motion. These imaging tools, when interfaced with modern radiation delivery systems, comprise what is now called image-guided radiation therapy. The approaches used in the localization of prostate cancer have included transabdominal US-guided tracking, as well as monitoring the location of radiopaque fiducial markers with electronic portal imaging devices. More recently, image-guided treatment technology has been developed to visualize the prostate by using CT technology. Several approaches are being implemented. They include the use of linear accelerator–mounted x-ray tubes and two-dimensional detectors (eg, electronic portal imaging devices) to produce kilovoltage cone-beam CT images. Megavoltage CT images of the irradiated region can be generated by rotation of the therapeutic beam. This approach is available with helical tomotherapy, where images can be acquired not only before and after but also during treatment. Last, CT scanners have been placed in the treatment room either as part of the treatment machine or with the capability of transferring the patient in the treatment position on a common couch top from one device to the other (143).

To appreciate and apply optimal imaging protocols, it is essential to understand radiation therapy needs and the new concept of "dose painting" with IMRT. Although the classic approach to radiation therapy applies homogeneous dose distributions within the targeted tumor to avoid underdosing tumor deposits, recent advances in imaging provide an approach to define anatomic subregions of the tumor according to their level of radiosensitivity or radioresistance. IMRT provides an approach for differential dose painting to selectively increase the dose to specific tumor-bearing regions. With IMRT techniques, radiation dose distributions can be produced that permit simultaneous delivery of different dose prescriptions to multiple target sites. To be able to dose paint, one needs to know the tumor location, volume, and extent. Furthermore, information regarding tumor biology (eg, tumor aggressiveness, angiogenesis, hypoxia) is becoming essential (144). For example, functional imaging is already capable of identifying foci of hypoxic tumor clones that may require enhanced local doses. Recent data suggest that foci of high-Gleason-score prostate cancer may require doses of 90 Gy to achieve maximal levels of local control (145). Although it is not feasible to treat the whole prostate to this dose level without exceeding the tolerance of the urethra and the rectum, IMRT can be used to increase the dose to selected tumor-bearing regions within the prostate (146). The ability to deliver a dose of 90 Gy to the dominant intraprostatic lesions while treating the entire prostate to 81 Gy and keeping the dose to the rectum and bladder below tolerance represents a new paradigm in the management of prostate cancer with IMRT (147). With the ability of MR spectroscopic imaging to identify high-Gleason-score (>8) prostate cancer, and with improved tumor localization when using combined MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging data, the first IMRT dose-painting clinical trials are under way. On the basis of such anatomic and metabolic information, patient-specific parametric images have been used to dose paint during brachytherapy as well (Fig 18) (144).

View larger version (48K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 18: Prostate cancer clinical stage T1c. Patient was referred for brachytherapy. Coronal T2-weighted fast spin-echo (5000/96 [effective]) MR image demonstrates tumor (t) in right side of gland, with evidence of direct invasion to right side of urethra (arrow). Left-side low-signal-intensity wall (arrowhead) of urethra is intact. Because of tumor location, intensity-modulated radiation therapy was chosen as preferred treatment over brachytherapy. Incidentally noted is prostatic utricle (U).

Imaging in Treatment Follow-up
The role of imaging after therapy depends on the treatment used (watchful waiting, radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or androgen deprivation therapy) and on clinical and laboratory findings. Regardless of the type of treatment, serial measurements of PSA level and DRE findings are the standard tools used in monitoring for tumor recurrence. The earliest and most common indication of recurrent cancer is an increasing serum PSA level. There is no need for routine imaging studies if the PSA level is undetectable and there are no new clinical findings.

When the PSA level is elevated, three main categories of prostate cancer recurrence are considered: PSA-only relapse, local recurrence (in the postprostatectomy bed after radical prostatectomy or in the gland after radiation therapy), and distant metastases (most commonly nodal or osseous). The key clinical consideration in evaluating a patient with a possible recurrence is the differentiation between local and metastatic relapse. Clinical nomograms used to predict whether a recurrence is more likely local or metastatic have been widely studied and their clinical relevance has been determined (30,149,150). The nomograms are based on clinical parameters such as tumor stage and grade at the time of diagnosis and the PSA doubling time. Distant recurrence is suggested by a short PSA doubling time (<10 months) in a patient with a high-grade cancer (Gleason score 8–10) or a high pathologic stage (SVI or lymph node metastases). By contrast, local recurrence is typically marked by a prolonged doubling time (>10 months) in a patient with a Gleason score of 2–7, a positive surgical margin, and no involvement of the seminal vesicles or lymph nodes (149).

In a patient cured with surgery, the PSA level should decline to an undetectable level within 21–30 days after surgery and remain undetectable thereafter (151,152). PSA level decreases more slowly after definitive radiation therapy than after surgery and may not reach a nadir until 18–30 months after treatment (153,154). Although any increase in PSA level after radical prostatectomy indicates recurrence, the American Society for Therapeutic Radiation Oncology defines a biochemical recurrence for a postirradiated patient as three consecutive increases in PSA level from the nadir, with the date of recurrence assigned halfway between the dates of nadir and the first increase. Recently, however, it has been shown that the definition of PSA failure as nadir plus 2 ng/mL provides a better surrogate for treatment failure in patients treated with permanent prostate brachytherapy or external-beam radiation therapy (155). The reported rate of biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy ranges from 10% to 53% (150,151,156–161). Biochemical relapse after radiation therapy occurs at a similar rate. When local recurrence is suspected because of increasing PSA level or because a nodule or induration has been felt at DRE, a diagnostic work-up is initiated.

Imaging has not been widely used for the detection of local recurrence. Transrectal US, CT, and MR imaging, however, have been evaluated for detection of local recurrence after prostatectomy. The most commonly used imaging study is transrectal US. It has been shown that transrectal US is more sensitive than DRE (76% vs 44%), albeit less specific (67% vs 91%) (162). The overall transrectal US-guided biopsy detection rate was 41%. The constellation of findings most associated with local recurrence was a PSA level above 4 ng/mL and positive DRE and transrectal US findings (162). In a study evaluating CT detection of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy, only 36% of lesions were detected, and in all patients in whom the recurrence was detected the tumor size was larger than 2 cm (163). Endorectal MR has proved capable of detecting local recurrence in many patients with an increasing PSA level but no palpable tumor in the prostatic fossa. An initial study demonstrated the potential of endorectal MR to evaluate local recurrence after prostatectomy with excellent sensitivity (100%) and specificity (100%) (164). A study in a larger patient cohort confirmed the high sensitivity and specificity of MR imaging in this setting (165). Local recurrences can be detected at MR in the perianastomotic and retrovesical regions (Fig 19). These two sites are readily identified on transrectal US scans and subsequently confirmed at transrectal biopsy (162). However, 30% of local recurrences, as shown at MR imaging, can occur elsewhere in the pelvis, at sites of retained seminal vesicles or at the lateral or anterior surgical margins (Fig 20) (165). MR imaging has the potential to direct a transrectal biopsy to these sites and thus may lead to a better diagnostic yield than transrectal US. An additional advantage of MR over transrectal US is the capacity to use both endorectal and pelvic phased-array coils to concomitantly evaluate pelvic lymph nodes and osseous structures, thus allowing detection of all sites of pelvic relapse in a single examination.

View larger version (145K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 19a: Images in 67-year-old man after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Increasing PSA level (1.3 ng/mL) was detected postoperatively. (a) Transverse and (b) sagittal T2-weighted fast spin-echo (5000/96 [effective]) MR images show intermediate-signal-intensity mass (arrows) adjacent to the posterior bladder wall, consistent with local recurrence. Recurrent carcinoma was proved at transrectal US-guided biopsy.

View larger version (170K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 19b: Images in 67-year-old man after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Increasing PSA level (1.3 ng/mL) was detected postoperatively. (a) Transverse and (b) sagittal T2-weighted fast spin-echo (5000/96 [effective]) MR images show intermediate-signal-intensity mass (arrows) adjacent to the posterior bladder wall, consistent with local recurrence. Recurrent carcinoma was proved at transrectal US-guided biopsy.

View larger version (71K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 20a: Transverse images in 72-year-old man after radical retropubic prostatectomy with increasing PSA level and recurrence in seminal vesicle remnant. (a) CT images through pelvis show multiple surgical clips, including one near tip of resected left seminal vesicle (right, arrow). Adjacent superior section (left) shows small soft-tissue nodule (arrowheads) contiguous with clip. (b) T2-weighted fast spin-echo (5000/96 [effective]) MR image in same patient shows intermediate-signal-intensity recurrent tumor (t) in seminal vesicle remnant.

View larger version (166K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 20b: Transverse images in 72-year-old man after radical retropubic prostatectomy with increasing PSA level and recurrence in seminal vesicle remnant. (a) CT images through pelvis show multiple surgical clips, including one near tip of resected left seminal vesicle (right, arrow). Adjacent superior section (left) shows small soft-tissue nodule (arrowheads) contiguous with clip. (b) T2-weighted fast spin-echo (5000/96 [effective]) MR image in same patient shows intermediate-signal-intensity recurrent tumor (t) in seminal vesicle remnant.

View larger version (84K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 21a: Prostate cancer recurrence after radiation treatment in patient with increasing PSA level (4.5 ng/mL). (a) Transverse and (b) coronal T2-weighted fast spin-echo (5000/96 [effective]) MR images demonstrate large tumor in the left side of the gland (arrow in a and b) extending into seminal vesicles (arrow in b). Findings were confirmed at salvage prostatectomy. (c) Pathologic specimen shows large left-side tumor (outlined). (Hematoxylin-eosin stain.)

View larger version (127K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 21b: Prostate cancer recurrence after radiation treatment in patient with increasing PSA level (4.5 ng/mL). (a) Transverse and (b) coronal T2-weighted fast spin-echo (5000/96 [effective]) MR images demonstrate large tumor in the left side of the gland (arrow in a and b) extending into seminal vesicles (arrow in b). Findings were confirmed at salvage prostatectomy. (c) Pathologic specimen shows large left-side tumor (outlined). (Hematoxylin-eosin stain.)

View larger version (108K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 21c: Prostate cancer recurrence after radiation treatment in patient with increasing PSA level (4.5 ng/mL). (a) Transverse and (b) coronal T2-weighted fast spin-echo (5000/96 [effective]) MR images demonstrate large tumor in the left side of the gland (arrow in a and b) extending into seminal vesicles (arrow in b). Findings were confirmed at salvage prostatectomy. (c) Pathologic specimen shows large left-side tumor (outlined). (Hematoxylin-eosin stain.)

If the bone scan is unequivocally positive, imaging assessment is essentially completed. Equivocal findings on a bone scan may warrant further imaging for clarification. Bone scanning is also widely used in treatment follow-up, but FDG PET is emerging as a modality of choice in treatment follow-up of bone metastasis in patients with aggressive disease. PET is better than either bone scanning or CT for differentiation between "active" bone metastasis and healing bone (121) (Fig 22). The routine use of CT in follow-up of skeletal metastasis from prostate cancer is not recommended (Fig 23). CT can play a role in the assessment of more aggressive lytic lesions with potential for pathologic fracture. CT and FDG PET scans are used in the evaluation of nodal disease. Since most patients undergo a staging lymphadenectomy during radical prostatectomy, assessment for nodal disease with cross-sectional imaging in patients who have undergone surgery is focused on common iliac and retroperitoneal nodes. In patients treated with radiation therapy, cross-sectional imaging of the entire pelvis to evaluate for lymph node metastases is standard.

View larger version (154K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 22a: Advanced metastatic prostate cancer. (a) Anterior (left) and posterior (right) April 1999 99mTc methylene diphosphonate bone scans show extensive metastatic disease in ribs, spine, and pelvis. (b) Coronal FDG PET scans obtained at similar time show multiple FDG-avid foci, consistent with metabolically active disease. (c) Anterior (left) and posterior (right) July 1999 follow-up bone scans 3 months after treatment with taxol, estramustine, and cisplatin therapy show very little change compared with a. (d) FDG PET scans obtained at same time as follow-up bone scans show markedly reduced metabolic activity in response to treatment. (Images courtesy of Steve Larson, MD, New York)

View larger version (69K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 22b: Advanced metastatic prostate cancer. (a) Anterior (left) and posterior (right) April 1999 99mTc methylene diphosphonate bone scans show extensive metastatic disease in ribs, spine, and pelvis. (b) Coronal FDG PET scans obtained at similar time show multiple FDG-avid foci, consistent with metabolically active disease. (c) Anterior (left) and posterior (right) July 1999 follow-up bone scans 3 months after treatment with taxol, estramustine, and cisplatin therapy show very little change compared with a. (d) FDG PET scans obtained at same time as follow-up bone scans show markedly reduced metabolic activity in response to treatment. (Images courtesy of Steve Larson, MD, New York)

View larger version (154K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 22c: Advanced metastatic prostate cancer. (a) Anterior (left) and posterior (right) April 1999 99mTc methylene diphosphonate bone scans show extensive metastatic disease in ribs, spine, and pelvis. (b) Coronal FDG PET scans obtained at similar time show multiple FDG-avid foci, consistent with metabolically active disease. (c) Anterior (left) and posterior (right) July 1999 follow-up bone scans 3 months after treatment with taxol, estramustine, and cisplatin therapy show very little change compared with a. (d) FDG PET scans obtained at same time as follow-up bone scans show markedly reduced metabolic activity in response to treatment. (Images courtesy of Steve Larson, MD, New York)

View larger version (77K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 22d: Advanced metastatic prostate cancer. (a) Anterior (left) and posterior (right) April 1999 99mTc methylene diphosphonate bone scans show extensive metastatic disease in ribs, spine, and pelvis. (b) Coronal FDG PET scans obtained at similar time show multiple FDG-avid foci, consistent with metabolically active disease. (c) Anterior (left) and posterior (right) July 1999 follow-up bone scans 3 months after treatment with taxol, estramustine, and cisplatin therapy show very little change compared with a. (d) FDG PET scans obtained at same time as follow-up bone scans show markedly reduced metabolic activity in response to treatment. (Images courtesy of Steve Larson, MD, New York)

View larger version (88K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 23a: Comparison of scans in evaluation of osseous metastasis. (a) Unenhanced CT scan in a patient with known metastatic prostate cancer. Focal increased mineralization in T12 vertebral body (arrow) is consistent with prostate cancer metastasis. (b) Coronal FDG PET scan obtained at same time shows increased activity at corresponding level, consistent with active metastasis. (c) Transverse CT scan in same patient after androgen ablation therapy at same level as a shows increased mineralization; lesion (arrow) measures and appears even larger, raising question of lesion growth versus healing. (d) Coronal FDG PET scan obtained at same time as c shows marked decrease in FDG activity compared with that in b, indicating healing and favorable treatment response.

View larger version (126K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 23b: Comparison of scans in evaluation of osseous metastasis. (a) Unenhanced CT scan in a patient with known metastatic prostate cancer. Focal increased mineralization in T12 vertebral body (arrow) is consistent with prostate cancer metastasis. (b) Coronal FDG PET scan obtained at same time shows increased activity at corresponding level, consistent with active metastasis. (c) Transverse CT scan in same patient after androgen ablation therapy at same level as a shows increased mineralization; lesion (arrow) measures and appears even larger, raising question of lesion growth versus healing. (d) Coronal FDG PET scan obtained at same time as c shows marked decrease in FDG activity compared with that in b, indicating healing and favorable treatment response.

View larger version (80K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 23c: Comparison of scans in evaluation of osseous metastasis. (a) Unenhanced CT scan in a patient with known metastatic prostate cancer. Focal increased mineralization in T12 vertebral body (arrow) is consistent with prostate cancer metastasis. (b) Coronal FDG PET scan obtained at same time shows increased activity at corresponding level, consistent with active metastasis. (c) Transverse CT scan in same patient after androgen ablation therapy at same level as a shows increased mineralization; lesion (arrow) measures and appears even larger, raising question of lesion growth versus healing. (d) Coronal FDG PET scan obtained at same time as c shows marked decrease in FDG activity compared with that in b, indicating healing and favorable treatment response.

View larger version (112K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 23d: Comparison of scans in evaluation of osseous metastasis. (a) Unenhanced CT scan in a patient with known metastatic prostate cancer. Focal increased mineralization in T12 vertebral body (arrow) is consistent with prostate cancer metastasis. (b) Coronal FDG PET scan obtained at same time shows increased activity at corresponding level, consistent with active metastasis. (c) Transverse CT scan in same patient after androgen ablation therapy at same level as a shows increased mineralization; lesion (arrow) measures and appears even larger, raising question of lesion growth versus healing. (d) Coronal FDG PET scan obtained at same time as c shows marked decrease in FDG activity compared with that in b, indicating healing and favorable treatment response.

	SUMMARY

TOP ABSTRACT CARE PATTERNS AND REVIEW... USE OF IMAGING IN... SUMMARY ESSENTIALS References

	ESSENTIALS

TOP ABSTRACT CARE PATTERNS AND REVIEW... USE OF IMAGING IN... SUMMARY ESSENTIALS References

 

• The use of imaging tests should be guided according to the patient's risk category, which is determined by the patient's age, PSA level, Gleason score, and number of positive biopsy cores.
  
• Transrectal US is primarily used to guide prostate biopsies, but new developments in microbubble contrast agents offer the possibility of improving prostate cancer detection by detecting tumor angiogenesis.
  
• MR imaging, with high-resolution T2-weighted scans, MR spectroscopy, and dynamic contrast enhancement, is increasingly seen as a method that can improve prostate cancer detection, characterization, staging, and treatment follow-up.
  
• Although early reports with ¹⁸F fluorodeoxyglucose PET in prostate cancer were disappointing, newer reconstruction techniques and new PET agents, including ¹¹C methionine, ¹¹C acetate, ¹¹C choline, and ¹⁸F fluorodihydrotestosterone, hold great promise for the metabolic evaluation of prostate cancer and the improvement of our understanding of tumor biology.
  

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 
The authors thank Ada Muellner, BA, for editing the manuscript.

	FOOTNOTES

 

Abbreviations: DRE = digital rectal examination • ECE = extracapsular extension • FDG = fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose • IMRT = intensity-modulated radiation therapy • PSA = prostate-specific antigen • SVI = seminal vesicle invasion • 3D = three-dimensional

Authors stated no financial relationship to disclose.

	References

TOP ABSTRACT CARE PATTERNS AND REVIEW... USE OF IMAGING IN... SUMMARY ESSENTIALS References

 

1. American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures 2007. Publication no. 500807. Atlanta, Ga: American Cancer Society, 2006.
2. Bartsch G, Horninger W, Klocker H, et al. Prostate cancer mortality after introduction of prostate-specific antigen mass screening in the Federal State of Tyrol, Austria. Urology 2001;58:417–424.[CrossRef][Medline]
3. Silverberg E, Boring CC, Squires TS. Cancer statistics, 1990. CA Cancer J Clin 1990;40:9–26.[Medline]
4. Jemal A, Murray T, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2005. CA Cancer J Clin 2005;55(1):10–30. [Published correction appears in CA Cancer J Clin 2005;55(4):259.]
5. 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.[CrossRef][Medline]
6. Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Yang X, Epstein JI. The Gleason grading system: an overview. J Urol Pathol 1999;10:141–157.[CrossRef]
7. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 1974;111:58–64.[Medline]
8. Green FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al, eds. AJCC cancer staging manual. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, 2002.
9. Kattan MW, Stapleton AM, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. Evaluation of a nomogram used to predict the pathologic stage of clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer 1997;79:528–537.[CrossRef][Medline]
10. Kattan MW, Zelefsky MJ, Kupelian PA, Scardino PT, Fuks Z, Leibel SA. Pretreatment nomogram for predicting the outcome of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:3352–3359.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11. Gilligan T, Kantoff PW. Chemotherapy for prostate cancer. Urology 2002;60:94–100.[CrossRef][Medline]
12. Thompson IM, Seay TM. Will current clinical trials answer the most important questions about prostate adenocarcinoma? Oncology (Williston Park) 1997;11:1109–1117.[Medline]
13. 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.[CrossRef][Medline]
14. Amis ES Jr, Bigongiari LR, Bluth EI, et al. Pretreatment staging of clinically localized prostate cancer. Radiology 2000;215(S):703–708.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. 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.
16. Roehl KA, Antenor JA, Catalona WJ. Serial biopsy results in prostate cancer screening study. J Urol 2002;167:2435–2439.[CrossRef][Medline]
17. Takenaka A, Hara R, Hyodo Y, et al. Transperineal extended biopsy improves the clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate: a comparative study of 6 and 12 biopsy cores. Int J Urol 2006;13:10—14.
18. Gore JL, Shariat SF, Miles BJ, et al. Optimal combinations of systematic sextant and laterally directed biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 2001;165:1554–1559.[CrossRef][Medline]
19. Nash PA, Bruce JE, Indudhara R, et al. Transrectal ultrasound guided prostatic nerve blockade eases systematic needle biopsy of the prostate. J Urol 1996;155:607–609.[CrossRef][Medline]
20. Terris MK, Stamey TA. Determination of prostate volume by transrectal ultrasound. J Urol 1991;145:984–987.[Medline]
21. Benson MC, Whang IS, Pantuck A, et al. Prostate specific antigen density: a means of distinguishing benign prostatic hypertrophy and prostate cancer. J Urol 1992;147:815–816.[Medline]
22. Shinohara K, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. The appearance of prostate cancer on transrectal ultrasonography: correlation of imaging and pathological examinations. J Urol 1989;142:76–82.[Medline]
23. Lee F, Gray JM, McLeary RD, et al. Transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: location, echogenicity, histopathology, and staging. Prostate 1985;7:117–129.[Medline]
24. Ohori M, Kattan MW, Utsunomiya T, Suyama K, Scardino PT, Wheeler TM. Do impalpable (T1c) cancers visible on ultrasound differ from those not visible? J Urol 2003;169:964–968.[CrossRef][Medline]
25. Ohori M, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. The new American Joint Committee on Cancer and International Union against Cancer TNM classification of prostate cancer: clinicopathologic correlations. Cancer 1994;74:104–114.[CrossRef][Medline]
26. 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.[CrossRef][Medline]
27. 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.[Medline]
28. Scardino PT, Shinohara K, Wheeler TM, Carter SS. Staging of prostate cancer: value of ultrasonography. Urol Clin North Am 1989;16:713–734.[Medline]
29. 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.[Medline]
30. Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Pearson JD. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology 2001;58:843–848.[CrossRef][Medline]
31. Cornud F, Hamida K, Flam T, et al. Endorectal color doppler sonography and endorectal MR imaging features of nonpalpable prostate cancer: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;175:1161–1168.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
32. Halpern EJ, Frauscher F, Strup SE, Nazarian LN, O'Kane P, Gomella LG. Prostate: high-frequency Doppler US imaging for cancer detection. Radiology 2002;225:71–77.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
33. Kuligowska E, Barish MA, Fenlon HM, Blake M. Predictors of prostate carcinoma: accuracy of gray-scale and color Doppler US and serum markers. Radiology 2001;220:757–764.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
34. Zelefsky MJ, Yamada Y, Cohen G, et al. Postimplantation dosimetric analysis of permanent transperineal prostate implantation: improved dose distributions with an intraoperative computer-optimized conformal planning technique. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;48:601–608.[CrossRef][Medline]
35. Chaussy C, Thuroff S. Results and side effects of high-intensity focused ultrasound in localized prostate cancer. J Endourol 2001;15:437–448.[CrossRef][Medline]
36. De La Taille A, Benson MC, Bagiella E, et al. Cryoablation for clinically localized prostate cancer using an argon-based system: complication rates and biochemical recurrence. BJU Int 2000;85:281–286.[CrossRef][Medline]
37. Shalev M, Kadmon D, Teh BS, et al. Suicide gene therapy toxicity after multiple and repeat injections in patients with localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2000;163:1747–1750.[CrossRef][Medline]
38. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
39. 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.[CrossRef][Medline]
40. Wolf JS Jr, Cher M, Dall'era M, Presti JC Jr, Hricak H, Carroll PR. The use and accuracy of cross-sectional imaging and fine needle aspiration cytology for detection of pelvic lymph node metastases before radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1995;153:993–999.[CrossRef][Medline]
41. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
42. Rorvik J, Halvorsen OJ, Albrektsen G, Haukaas S. Lymphangiography combined with biopsy and computer tomography to detect lymph node metastases in localized prostate cancer. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1998;32:116–119.[CrossRef][Medline]
43. Oyen RH, Van Poppel HP, Ameye FE, Van de Voorde WA, Baert AL, Baert LV. Lymph node staging of localized prostatic carcinoma with CT and CT-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy: prospective study of 285 patients. Radiology 1994;190:315–322.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
44. Flocks RH, Culp D, Porto R. Lymphatic spread from prostatic cancer. J Urol 1959;81:194–196.[Medline]
45. Petros JA, Catalona W. Lower incidence of unsuspected lymph node metastases in 521 consecutive patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 1992;147:1574–1575.[Medline]
46. Bader P, Burkhard FC, Markwalder R, Studer UE. Is a limited lymph node dissection an adequate staging procedure for prostate cancer? J Urol 2002;168:514–518.[CrossRef][Medline]
47. Bader P, Burkhard FC, Markwalder R, Studer UE. Disease progression and survival of patients with positive lymph nodes after radical prostatectomy: is there a chance of cure? J Urol 2003;169:849–854.[CrossRef][Medline]
48. Gervasi LA, Mata J, Easley JD, et al. Prognostic significance of lymph nodal metastases in prostate cancer. J Urol 1989;142:332–336.[Medline]
49. Hull GW, Rabbani F, Abbas F, Wheeler TM, Kattan MW, Scardino PT. Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients. J Urol 2002;167:528–534.[CrossRef][Medline]
50. Messing EM, Manola J, Sarosdy M, Wilding G, Crawford ED, Trump D. Immediate hormonal therapy compared with observation after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with node-positive prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 1999;341:1781–1788.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
51. Cheng L, Zincke H, Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Schere B, Bostwick DG. Risk of prostate carcinoma death in patients with lymph node metastasis. Cancer 2001;91:66–73.[CrossRef][Medline]
52. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
53. Traill ZC, Talbot D, Golding S, Gleeson FV. Magnetic resonance imaging versus radionuclide scintigraphy in screening for bone metastases. Clin Radiol 1999;54:448–451.[CrossRef][Medline]
54. Van der Wall H. The evaluation of malignancy: metastatic bone disease. In: Murray IPC, Ell PJ, eds. Nuclear medicine in clinical diagnosis and treatment. Vol 2. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone, 1998; 1169.
55. Hricak H, White S, Vigneron D, et al. Carcinoma of the prostate gland: MR imaging with pelvic phased array coil versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Radiology 1994;193:703–709.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
56. Schnall MD, Pollack HM. Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate gland. Urol Radiol 1990;12:109–114.[Medline]
57. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
58. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
59. Ikonen S, Kivisaari L, Vehmas T, et al. Optimal timing of post-biopsy MR imaging of the prostate. Acta Radiol 2001;42:70–73.[Medline]
60. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
61. White S, Hricak H, Forstner R, et al. Prostate cancer: effect of postbiopsy hemorrhage on interpretation of MR images. Radiology 1995;195:385–390.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
62. Rifkin MD, Zerhouni EA, Gatsonis CA, et al. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in staging early prostate cancer: results of a multi-institutional cooperative trial. N Engl J Med 1990;323:621–626.[Abstract]
63. Mullerad M, Hricak H, Kuroiwa K, et al. Comparison of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging, guided prostate biopsy and digital rectal examination in the preoperative anatomical localization of prostate cancer. J Urol 2005;174:2158–2163.[CrossRef][Medline]
64. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
65. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
66. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
67. Claus FG, Hricak H, Hattery RR. Pretreatment evaluation of prostate cancer: role of MR imaging and 1H MR spectroscopy. RadioGraphics 2004;24(Spec Issue):S167–S180.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
68. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
69. 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.[Medline]
70. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
71. Ikonen S, Karkkainen P, Kivisaari L, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of clinically localized prostatic cancer. J Urol 1998;159:915–919.[CrossRef][Medline]
72. 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.[CrossRef][Medline]
73. 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.[CrossRef][Medline]
74. Perrotti M, Kaufman Jr. RP, Jennings TA, et al. Endo-rectal coil magnetic resonance imaging in clinically localized prostate cancer: is it accurate? J Urol 1996;156:106–109.[CrossRef][Medline]
75. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
76. 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.[CrossRef][Medline]
77. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
78. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
79. Bernstein MR, Cangiano T, D'Amico A, et al. Endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging and clinicopathologic findings in T1c adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Urol Oncol 2000;5:104–107.[CrossRef][Medline]
80. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
81. Zakian KL, Sircar K, Hricak H, et al. Correlation of proton MR spectroscopic imaging with Gleason score based on step-section pathologic analysis after radical prostatectomy. Radiology 2005;234:804–814.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
82. Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, Kattan MW, et al. The utility of magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for predicting insignificant prostate cancer: an initial analysis. BJU Int. Published online January 11, 2007.
83. Swanson MG, Vigneron DB, Tabatabai ZL, et al. Proton HR-MAS spectroscopy and quantitative pathologic analysis of MRI/3D-MRSI-targeted postsurgical prostate tissues. Magn Reson Med 2003;50:944–954.[CrossRef][Medline]
84. Platt JF, Bree RL, Schwab RE. The accuracy of CT in the staging of carcinoma of the prostate. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1987;149:315–318.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
85. Engeler CE, Wasserman NF, Zhang G. Preoperative assessment of prostatic carcinoma by computerized tomography: weaknesses and new perspectives. Urology 1992;40:346–350.[CrossRef][Medline]
86. Jager GJ, Ruijter ET, van de Kaa CA, et al. Dynamic TurboFLASH subtraction technique for contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the prostate: correlation with histopathologic results. Radiology 1997;203:645–652.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
87. Kim CK, Park BK, Kim B. Localization of prostate cancer using 3T MRI: comparison of T2-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2006;30:7–11.[CrossRef][Medline]
88. Engelbrecht MR, Huisman 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
89. Buckley DL, Roberts C, Parker GJ, Logue JP, Hutchinson CE. Prostate cancer: evaluation of vascular characteristics with dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging—initial experience. Radiology 2004;233:709–715.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
90. Sato C, Naganawa S, Nakamura T, et al. Differentiation of noncancerous tissue and cancer lesions by apparent diffusion coefficient values in transition and peripheral zones of the prostate. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005;21:258–262.[CrossRef][Medline]
91. Bellin MF, Roy C, Kinkel K, et al. Lymph node metastases: safety and effectiveness of MR imaging with ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide particles—initial clinical experience. Radiology 1998;207:799–808.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
92. 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(25):2491–2499. [Published correction appears in N Engl J Med 2003;349(10):1010.][Free Full Text]
93. Wang L, Hricak H, Kattan MW, et al. Combined endorectal and phased-array MRI in the prediction of pelvic lymph node metastasis in prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186:743–748.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
94. Oesterling JE. Using PSA to eliminate the staging radionuclide bone scan: significant economic implications. Urol Clin North Am 1993;20:705–711.[Medline]
95. Lin K, Szabo Z, Chin BB, Civelek AC. The value of a baseline bone scan in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Clin Nucl Med 1999;24:579–582.[CrossRef][Medline]
96. Palmer E, Henrikson K, McKusick K, Strauss HW, Hochberg F. Pain as an indicator of bone metastasis. Acta Radiol 1988;29:445–449.[Medline]
97. Pomeranz SJ, Pretorius HT, Ramsingh PS. Bone scintigraphy and multimodality imaging in bone neoplasia: strategies for imaging in the new health care climate. Semin Nucl Med 1994;24:188–207.[CrossRef][Medline]
98. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
99. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
100. 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.[Medline]
101. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
102. Phelps ME. Inaugural article: positron emission tomography provides molecular imaging of biological processes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2000;97:9226–9233.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
103. Warburg O. Metabolism of tumors. New York, NY: Smith, 1931.
104. Weber G. Enzymology of cancer cells (second of two parts). N Engl J Med 1977;296:541–551.[Medline]
105. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
106. Delbeke D. Oncological applications of FDG PET imaging. J Nucl Med 1999;40:1706–1715.[Free Full Text]
107. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
108. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
109. 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.[CrossRef][Medline]
110. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
111. Weber G. Enzymology of cancer cells (first of two parts). N Engl J Med 1977;296:486–492.[Medline]
112. Yamamoto T, Seino Y, Fukumoto H, et al. Over-expression of facilitative glucose transporter genes in human cancer. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1990;170:223–230.[CrossRef][Medline]
113. Delbeke D. Oncological applications of FDG PET imaging: brain tumors, colorectal cancer, lymphoma and melanoma. J Nucl Med 1999;40:591–603.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
114. Effert PJ, Bares R, Handt S, Wolff JM, Bull U, Jakse G. Metabolic imaging of untreated prostate cancer by positron emission tomography with 18fluorine-labeled deoxyglucose. J Urol 1996;155:994–998.[CrossRef][Medline]
115. Hofer C, Laubenbacher C, Block T, Breul J, Hartung R, Schwaiger M. Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography is useless for the detection of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 1999;36:31–35.[Medline]
116. 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.[CrossRef][Medline]
117. Oyama N, Akino H, Suzuki Y, et al. Prognostic value of 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]-D-glucose positron emission tomography imaging for patients with prostate cancer. Mol Imaging Biol 2002;4:99–104.[CrossRef][Medline]
118. Shreve PD, Grossman HB, Gross MD, Wahl RL. Metastatic prostate cancer: initial findings of PET with 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose. Radiology 1996;199:751–756.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
119. Sanz G, Robles JE, Gimenez M, et al. Positron emission tomography with 18fluorine-labelled deoxyglucose: utility in localized and advanced prostate cancer. BJU Int 1999;84:1028–1031.[CrossRef][Medline]
120. Turlakow A, Larson SM, Coakley F, et al. Local detection of prostate cancer by positron emission tomography with 2-fluorodeoxyglucose: comparison of filtered back projection and iterative reconstruction with segmented attenuation correction. Q J Nucl Med 2001;45:235–244.[Medline]
121. Yeung H, Schoder H, Larson S. Utility of PET/CT for assessing equivocal PET lesions in oncology: initial experience [abstr]. J Nucl Med 2002;43(suppl):32P.
122. Morris MJ, Akhurst T, Osman I, et al. Fluorinated deoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging in progressive metastatic prostate cancer. Urology 2002;59:913–918.[CrossRef][Medline]
123. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
124. Macapinlac HA, Humm JL, Akhurst T, et al. Differential metabolism and pharmacokinetics of L-[1-11C]-methionine and 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (FDG) in androgen independent prostate cancer. Clin Positron Imaging 1999;2:173–181.[CrossRef][Medline]
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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
126. Eastham JA, Scardino PT. Radical prostatectomy for clinical stage T1 and T2 prostate cancer. In: Vogelzang NJ, Scardino PT, Shipley WU, Coffey DS, Miles BJ, eds. Comprehensive textbook of genitourinary oncology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2000; 722–738.
127. Bianco FJ Jr, Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Radical prostatectomy: long-term cancer control and recovery of sexual and urinary function ("trifecta"). Urology 2005;66:83–94.[CrossRef][Medline]
128. Touijer K, Kuroiwa K, Vickers A, et al. Impact of a multidisciplinary continuous quality improvement program on the positive surgical margin rate after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2006;49:853–858.[CrossRef][Medline]
129. Begg CB, Riedel ER, Bach PB, et al. Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1138–1144.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
130. Eastham JA, Kattan MW, Riedel E, et al. Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2003;170:2292–2295.[CrossRef][Medline]
131. Hu JC, Gold KF, Pashos CL, Mehta SS, Litwin MS. Role of surgeon volume in radical prostatectomy outcomes. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:401–405.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
132. Hricak H, Wang L, Wei DC, et al. The role of preoperative endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in the decision regarding whether to preserve or resect neurovascular bundles during radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer 2004;100:2655–2663.[CrossRef][Medline]
133. Coakley FV, Eberhardt S, Wei DC, et al. Blood loss during radical retropubic prostatectomy: relationship to morphologic features on preoperative endorectal magnetic resonance imaging. Urology 2002;59:884–888.[CrossRef][Medline]
134. Coakley FV, Eberhardt S, Kattan MW, Wei DC, Scardino PT, Hricak H. Urinary continence after radical retropubic prostatectomy: relationship with membranous urethral length on preoperative endorectal magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 2002;168:1032–1035.[CrossRef][Medline]
135. Ohori M, Scardino PT. Localized prostate cancer. Curr Probl Surg 2002;39:833–957.[CrossRef][Medline]
136. McShan DL, Fraass BA, Lichter AS. Full integration of the beam's eye view concept into computerized treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1990;18:1485–1494.[Medline]
137. Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Collaborative Working Group. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy: current status and issues of interest. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;51:880–914.[CrossRef][Medline]
138. Burman C, Chui CS, Kutcher G, et al. Planning, delivery, and quality assurance of intensity-modulated radiotherapy using dynamic multileaf collimator: a strategy for large-scale implementation for the treatment of carcinoma of the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997;39:863–873.[CrossRef][Medline]
139. Ling CC, Humm JL, Larson SM, et al. Towards multidimensional radiotherapy (MD-CRT): biological imaging and biological conformality. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;47:551–560.[CrossRef][Medline]
140. Pollack A, Zagars GK, Starkschall G, et al. Prostate cancer radiation dose response: results of the M.D. Anderson phase III randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;53:1097–1105.
141. Zelefsky MJ, Fuks Z, Hunt M, et al. High-dose radiation delivered by intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) improves the outcome of localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2001;166:876–881.[CrossRef][Medline]
142. Zietman AL, DeSilvio ML, Slater JD, et al. Comparison of conventional-dose vs high-dose conformal radiation therapy in clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005;294:1233–1239.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
143. Mackie TR, Kapatoes J, Ruchala K, et al. Image guidance for precise conformal radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;56:89–105.[CrossRef][Medline]
144. Townsend DW, Cherry SR. Combining anatomy and function: the path to true image fusion. Eur Radiol 2001;11:1968–1974.[CrossRef][Medline]
145. Pickett B, Vigneault E, Kurhanewicz J, Verhey L, Roach M. Static field intensity modulations to treat a dominant intra-prostatic lesion to 90 Gy compared to seven field 3-dimensional radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999;44:921–929.[CrossRef][Medline]
146. van Lin EN, Futterer JJ, Heijmink SW, et al. IMRT boost dose planning on dominant intraprostatic lesions: gold marker-based three-dimensional fusion of CT with dynamic contrast-enhanced and 1H-spectroscopic MRI. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;65:291–303.[CrossRef][Medline]
147. Xia P, Pickett B, Vigneault E, Verhey L, Roach M. Forward or inversely planned segmental multileaf collimator IMRT and sequential tomotherapy to treat multiple dominant intraprostatic lesions of prostate cancer to 90 Gy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;51:244–254.[Medline]
148. Chen L, Price RA Jr, Nguyen TB, et al. Dosimetric evaluation of MRI-based treatment planning for prostate cancer. Phys Med Biol 2004;49:5157–5170.[CrossRef][Medline]
149. Jhaveri F, Klein EA. How to explore the patient with a rising PSA after radical prostatectomy: defining local versus systemic failure. Semin Urol Oncol 1999;17:130–134.[Medline]
150. Pound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, Chan DW, Pearson JD, Walsh PC. Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA 1999;281:1591–1597.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
151. Laufer M, Pound CR, Carducci MA, Eisenberger MA. Management of patients with rising prostate-specific antigen after radical prostatectomy. Urology 2000;55:309–315.[CrossRef][Medline]
152. Partin AW, Oesterling JE. The clinical usefulness of prostate specific antigen: update 1994. J Urol 1994;152:1358–1368.[Medline]
153. Critz FA, Levinson AK, Williams WH, Holladay CT, Griffin VD, Holladay DA. Prostate specific antigen nadir achieved by men apparently cured of prostate cancer by radiotherapy. J Urol 1999;161:1199–1205.[CrossRef][Medline]
154. Pollack A, Zagars GK, Antolak JA, Kuban DA, Rosen II. Prostate biopsy status and PSA nadir level as early surrogates for treatment failure: analysis of a prostate cancer randomized radiation dose escalation trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;54:677–685.[CrossRef][Medline]
155. Kuban DA, Levy LB, Potters L, et al. Comparison of biochemical failure definitions for permanent prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;65:1487–1493.[CrossRef][Medline]
156. Amling CL, Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Seay TM, Slezak J, Zincke H. Long-term hazard of progression after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: continued risk of biochemical failure after 5 years. J Urol 2000;164:101–105.[CrossRef][Medline]
157. Catalona WJ, Smith DS. 5-year tumor recurrence rates after anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 1994;152:1837–1842.[Medline]
158. Freedland SJ, Mangold LA, Walsh PC, Partin AW. The prostatic specific antigen era is alive and well: prostatic specific antigen and biochemical progression following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2005;174:1276–1281.[CrossRef][Medline]
159. Kattan MW, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. Postoperative nomogram for disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1499–1507.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
160. Trapasso JG, deKernion JB, Smith RB, Dorey F. The incidence and significance of detectable levels of serum prostate specific antigen after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1994;152:1821–1825.[Medline]
161. Zincke H, Oesterling JE, Blute ML, et al. Long-term (15 years) results after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized (stage T2c or lower) prostate cancer. J Urol 1994;152:1850–1857.[Medline]
162. Leventis AK, Shariat SF, Slawin KM. Local recurrence after radical prostatectomy: correlation of US features with prostatic fossa biopsy findings. Radiology 2001;219:432–439.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
163. Kramer S, Gorich J, Gottfried HW, et al. Sensitivity of computed tomography in detecting local recurrence of prostatic carcinoma following radical prostatectomy. Br J Radiol 1997;70:995–999.[Abstract]
164. Silverman JM, Krebs TL. MR imaging evaluation with a transrectal surface coil of local recurrence of prostatic cancer in men who have undergone radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;168:379–385.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
165. Sella T, Schwartz LH, Swindle PW, et al. Suspected local recurrence after radical prostatectomy: endorectal coil MR imaging. Radiology 2004;231:379–385.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
166. Sala E, Eberhardt SC, Akin O, et al. Endorectal MR imaging before salvage prostatectomy: tumor localization and staging. Radiology 2006;238:176–183.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
167. Pucar D, Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, et al. Prostate cancer: correlation of MR imaging and MR spectroscopy with pathologic findings after radiation therapy—initial experience. Radiology 2005;236:545–553.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
168. Cher ML, Bianco FJ Jr, Lam JS, et al. Limited role of radionuclide bone scintigraphy in patients with prostate specific antigen elevations after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1998;160:1387–1391.[CrossRef][Medline]
169. Dotan ZA, Bianco FJ Jr, Rabbani F, et al. Pattern of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure dictates the probability of a positive bone scan in patients with an increasing PSA after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:1962–1968.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. Franiel, L. Ludemann, B. Rudolph, H. Rehbein, C. Stephan, M. Taupitz, and D. Beyersdorff Prostate MR Imaging: Tissue Characterization with Pharmacokinetic Volume and Blood Flow Parameters and Correlation with Histologic Parameters Radiology, July 1, 2009; 252(1): 101 - 108. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. J. Kelloff, P. Choyke, D. S. Coffey, and for The Prostate Cancer Imaging Working Group Challenges in Clinical Prostate Cancer: Role of Imaging Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2009; 192(6): 1455 - 1470. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Turkbey, P. S. Albert, K. Kurdziel, and P. L. Choyke Imaging Localized Prostate Cancer: Current Approaches and New Developments Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2009; 192(6): 1471 - 1480. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. V. Leyton, T. Olafsen, M. A. Sherman, K. B. Bauer, P. Aghajanian, R. E. Reiter, and A. M. Wu Engineered humanized diabodies for microPET imaging of prostate stem cell antigen-expressing tumors Protein Eng. Des. Sel., March 1, 2009; 22(3): 209 - 216. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. K. Lim, J. K. Kim, K. A. Kim, and K.-S. Cho Prostate Cancer: Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Map with T2-weighted Images for Detection--A Multireader Study Radiology, January 1, 2009; 250(1): 145 - 151. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. Luboldt, R. Kufer, N. Blumstein, T. L. Toussaint, A. Kluge, M. D. Seemann, and H.-J. Luboldt Prostate Carcinoma: Diffusion-weighted Imaging as Potential Alternative to Conventional MR and 11C-Choline PET/CT for Detection of Bone Metastases Radiology, December 1, 2008; 249(3): 1017 - 1025. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Chaurand, M. A. Rahman, T. Hunt, J. A. Mobley, G. Gu, J. C. Latham, R. M. Caprioli, and S. Kasper Monitoring Mouse Prostate Development by Profiling and Imaging Mass Spectrometry Mol. Cell. Proteomics, February 1, 2008; 7(2): 411 - 423. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Hirobe, A. Takahashi, S.-i. Hisasue, H. Kitamura, Y. Kunishima, N. Masumori, A. Iwasawa, K. Fujimori, T. Hasegawa, and T. Tsukamoto Bone Scanning Who Needs it Among Patients with Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer? Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol., October 2, 2007; (2007) hym097v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hricak, H. Articles by Scardino, P. T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hricak, H. Articles by Scardino, P. T. Related Collections Related Article