New imaging techniques in prostate cancer

Current Urology Reports

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 175-180

  Trabulsi, Edouard J ^b   Merriam, William G ^b   Gomella, Leonard G ^a  

^a THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CARBON 11; FLUORINE 18; PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER STAGING; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DOPPLER ECHOGRAPHY; ELASTOGRAPHY; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; IMAGING SYSTEM; MEDICAL LITERATURE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PROSTATE CANCER; REVIEW; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; TUMOR BIOPSY; TUMOR LOCALIZATION;

HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; MALE; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

EID: 33750288633     PISSN: 15272737     EISSN: 15346285     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11934-006-0018-9     Document Type: Review

References (16)

1. Halpern EJ, Ramey JR, Strup SE, et al.: Detection of prostate carcinoma with contrast-enhanced sonography using intermittent harmonic imaging. Cancer 2005, 104:2373-2383. This article investigates the use of microbubble contrast agents to better delineate areas of prostate cancer by TRUS and thus guide biopsy specimens.
2. Pelzer A, Bektic J, Berger AP, et al.: Prostate cancer detection in men with prostate specific antigen 4 to 10 ng/mL using a combined approach of contrast-enhanced color Doppler targeted and systematic biopsy. J Urol 2005, 173:1926-1929.
3. Konig K, Scheipers U, Pesavento A, et al.: Initial experiences with real-time elastography guided biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 2005, 174:115-117. Elastography is a promising technique that may help detect prostate cancer by determining the compressibility of lesions seen by TRUS.
4. Claus FG, Hricak H, Mattery RR: Pretreatment evaluation of prostate cancer: role of MR imaging and 1H MR spectroscopy. Radiographics 2004, 24(suppl 1):S167-S180. This recent review describes the current use of MRI and MRSI practices in prostate cancer.
5. Noworolski SM, Henry RG, Vigneron DB, Kurhanewicz J: Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in normal and abnormal prostate tissues as defined by biopsy, MRI, and 3D MRSI. Magn Reson Med 2005, 53:249-255. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI offers promise in differentiating various types of benign and malignant prostate tissues.
6. Futterer JJ, Engelbrecht MR, Huisman HJ, et al.: Staging prostate cancer with dynamic contrast-enhanced endorectal MR imaging prior to radical prostatectomy: experienced versus less experienced readers. Radiology 2005, 237:541-549. Use of DCE-MRI for staging purposes may be limited to assisting centers with less experienced MRI radiologists.
7. Hara N, Okuizumi M, Koike H, et al.: Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) is a useful modality for the precise detection and staging of early prostate cancer. Prostate 2005, 62:140-147.
8. Zakian KL, Sircar K, Hricak H, et al.: Correlation of proton MR spectroscopic imaging with Cleason score based on step-section pathologic analysis after radical prostatectomy. Radiology 2005, 234:804-814. Preoperative MRSI sensitivity to detect prostate cancer correlates with increasing Gleason score.
9. Amsellem-Ouazana D, Younes P, Conquy S, et al.: Negative prostatic biopsies in patients with a high risk of prostate cancer. Is the combination of endorectal MRI and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging (MRSI) a useful tool? A preliminary study. Eur Urol 2005, 47:582-586. This is the second study to demonstrate a potential role for the use of MRSI in the setting of previously negative biopsies.
10. Yuen JS, Thng CH, Tan PH, et al.: Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for the detection of tumor foci in men with prior negative transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy. J Urol 2004, 171:1482-1486.
11. Coakley FV, Teh HS, Qayyum A, et al.: Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging for locally recurrent prostate cancer after external beam radiation therapy: preliminary experience. Radiology 2004, 233:441-448. MRSI attained a sensitivity of 89% and a specificity of 82% in detection of prostate cancer in the setting of biochemical failure.
12. 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. This study suggests that a period as long as 8 weeks may be required to allow optimum MRI/MRSI imaging after prostate biopsy.
13. Kwee SA, Coel MN, Lim J, Ko JP, et al.: Prostate cancer localization with 18 fluorine fluorocholine positron-emission tomography. J Urol 2005, 173:252-255. PET imaging correlated with sextant biopsy achieved 93% sensitivity for accurately identifying positive sextants. However, specificity was only 46%.
14. Schmid DT, John H, Zweifel R, et al.: Fluorocholine PET/CT in patients with prostate cancer: initial experience. Radiology 2005, 235:623-628.
15. Toth G, Lengyel Z, Balkay L, et al.: Detection of prostate cancer with HC-methionine positron emission tomography. J Urol 2005, 173:66-69.
16. Yamaguchi T, Lee J, Uemura H, et al.: Prostate cancer: a comparative study of HC-choline PET and MR imaging combined with proton MR spectroscopy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005, 32:742-748. In this study of 20 men, PET actually performed better than MRSI in predicting the laterality of the dominant tumor nodule prior to prostatectomy.