The advancement of imaging in diagnosis of prostate cancer
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15584/ejcem.2019.1.11Keywords:
MRI, PET, prostate carcinomaAbstract
Introduction. Multiple imaging methods have been used to stage prostate carcinoma. Some of them are easily accessible, others very accurate. The advancements over many years have been taken under consideration and now every imaging method has a specific role in the diagnosis of this malignancy.
Aim. There are over 1,100,000 cases of prostate carcinoma diagnosed every year around the world. Imaging examinations have to be introduced to accurately stage, and therefore properly treat this disease. This review concentrates on advantages and disadvantages of different imaging methods.
Material and methods. The literature search was performed.
Results. Imaging methods serve specific goals. TRUS is recommended for acquiring biopsy specimen due to high accessibility and low cost of the examination.
Conclusion. The best tool for staging prostate carcinoma and finding suspicious lesions when attempting second biopsy is mpMRI or bpMRI.
Downloads
References
Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(5).
Torre LA, F. Bray, R. L. Siegel, J. Ferlay. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015; 65(2):87-108.
Torre LA, Siegel RL, Ward EM, Jemal A. Global Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates and Trends-An Update. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016;25(1):16-27.
Breslow N, Chan CW, Dhom G , et al. Latent carcinoma of prostate at autopsy in seven areas. Int J Cancer. 1977;20(5):680-8.
De Angelis R, Sant M, Coleman MP, et al. Cancer survival in Europe 1999-2007 by country and age: results of EUROCARE--5-a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(1):23-34.
Verdecchia A, Santaquilani M, Sant M. Survival for cancer patients in Europe. Ann Ist Super Sanita. 2009;45(3):315-24.
Delongchamps NB, Singh A, Haas GP. The role of prevalence in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Cancer Control. 2006;13(3):158–168.
Bell KJ, Del Mar C, Wright G, Dickinson J, Glasziou P. Prevalence of incidental prostate cancer: A systematic review of autopsy studies. Int J Cancer. 2015;137(7):1749-57.
Kelloff GJ, Choyke P, Coffey DS; Prostate Cancer Imaging Working Group.Challenges in clinical prostate cancer: role of imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(6):1455-70.
Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Briers E, et al. EAU-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. European Urology. 2017;71(4):618-629.
Louie KS, Seigneurin A, Cathcart P, Sasieni P. Do prostate cancer risk models improve the predictive accuracy of PSA screening? A meta-analysis. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(5):848-64.
Pessoa RR, Viana PC, Mattedi RL, et al. Value of 3-Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy for improved risk stratification in patients considered for active surveillance. BJU Int. 2017;119(4):535-542.
Lee HY, Lee HJ, Byun SS, Lee SE, Hong SK, Kim SH. Classification of focal prostatic lesions on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and the accuracy of TRUS to diagnose prostate cancer. Korean J Radiol. 2009;10(3):244-51.
Tarcan T, Ozveri H, Biren T, Türkeri L, Akdas A. Evaluation of prostate specific antigen density and transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsies in 100 consecutive patients with a negative digital rectal examination and intermediate serum prostate specific antigen levels. Int J Urol. 1997;4(4):362-7.
Terris MK, Hammerer PG, Nickas ME. Comparison of ultrasound imaging in patients undergoing transperineal and transrectal prostate ultrasound. Urology. 1998;52(6):1070-2.
O' Donoghue PM, McSweeney SE, Jhaveri K. Genitourinary imaging: current and emerging applications. J Postgrad Med. 2010;56(2):131-9.
Tzai TS, Lin JS, Yeh YC, Chow NH. The role of transrectal ultrasonography on the palpable and impalpable abnormal prostate. Eur Urol. 1995;27(2):142-5.
Wallitt KL, Khan SR, Dubash S, Tam HH, Khan S, Barwick TD. Clinical PET Imaging in Prostate Cancer. Radiographics. 2017;37(5):1512-1536.
Gomella LG, Labrie F, Gamito EJ, Brawer MK. Prostate cancer: risk assessment and diagnostic approaches. Rev Urol. 2001;3(2):31-8.
Danziger M, Shevchuk M, Antonescu C, Matthews GJ, Fracchia JA. Predictive accuracy of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: correlations to matched prostatectomy specimens.
Pinto F, Totaro A, Calarco A, et al. Imaging in prostate cancer diagnosis: present role and future perspectives. Urol Int. 2011;86(4):373-82.
Schuster DM, Nanni C, Fanti S. PET Tracers Beyond FDG in Prostate Cancer. Semin Nucl Med. 2016;46(6):507-521.
Engelbrecht MR, Barentsz JO, Jager GJ, et al. Prostate cancer staging using imaging. BJU Int. 2000;86(1):123-34.
Shinohara K, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. The appearance of prostate cancer on transrectal ultrasonography: correlation of imaging and pathological examinations. J Urol. 1989;142(1):76-82.
Tyloch JF, Wieczorek AP. The standards of an ultrasound examination of the prostate gland. Part 2. J Ultrason. 2017;17(68):43-58.
Ghai S, Eure G, Fradet V, et al. Assessing Cancer Risk on Novel 29 MHz Micro-Ultrasound Images of the Prostate: Creation of the Micro-Ultrasound Protocol for Prostate Risk Identification. J Urol. 2016;196(2):562-9.
Ghai S, Van der Kwast T. Suspicious findings on micro-ultrasound imaging and early detection of prostate cancer. Urol Case Rep. 2017;16:98-100.
Rohrbach D, Wodlinger B, Wen J, Mamou J, Feleppa E. High-Frequency Quantitative Ultrasound for Imaging Prostate Cancer Using a Novel Micro-Ultrasound Scanner. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2018;44(7):1341-1354.
Furlan A, Borhani AA, Westphalen AC. Multiparametric MR imaging of the Prostate: Interpretation Including Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Radiol Clin North Am. 2018;56(2):223-238.
Mueller-Lisse UG, Scherr MK. Proton MR spectroscopy of the prostate. Eur J Radiol. 2007 ;63(3):351-60.
Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MG. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015;68(3):438-50.
Le JD, Tan N, Shkolyar E, et al. Multifocality and prostate cancer detection by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. Eur Urol. 2015;67(3):569-76.
Simmons LA, Ahmed HU, Moore CM, et al. The PICTURE study -- prostate imaging (multi-parametric MRI and Prostate HistoScanning™) compared to transperineal ultrasound guided biopsy for significant prostate cancer risk evaluation. Contemp Clin Trials. 2014;37(1):69-83.
de Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Local Staging of Prostate Cancer: A Diagnostic Meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2016;70(2):233-45.
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389(10071):815-822.
Filson CP, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, et al. Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: The role of systematic and targeted biopsies. Cancer. 2016; 122(6):884-92.
Müller S, Lilleaasen G, Sand TE, et al. Poor reproducibility of PIRADS score in two multiparametric MRIs before biopsy in men with elevated PSA. World J Urol. 2018;36(5):687-691.
Muller BG, Fütterer JJ, Gupta RT, et al. The role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in focal therapy for prostate cancer: recommendations from a consensus panel. BJU Int. 2014;113(2):218-27.
Sherrer RL, Glaser ZA, Gordetsky JB, Nix JW, Porter KK, Rais-Bahrami S. Comparison of biparametric MRI to full multiparametric MRI for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.
Di Campli E, Delli Pizzi A, Seccia B, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of biparametric vs multiparametric MRI in clinically significant prostate cancer: Comparison between readers with different experience. Eur J Radiol. 2018;101:17-23.
Outwater EK, Montilla-Soler JL. Imaging of prostate carcinoma. Cancer Control. 2013;20(3):161-76.
Even-Sapir E, Metser U, Mishani E, Lievshitz G, Lerman H, Leibovitch I. The detection of bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: 99mTc-MDP Planar bone scintigraphy, single- and multi-field-of-view SPECT, 18F-fluoride PET, and 18F-fluoride PET/CT.
Barry MJ, Simmons LH. Prevention of Prostate Cancer Morbidity and Mortality: Primary Prevention and Early Detection. Med Clin North Am. 2017;101(4):787-806.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2019 European Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition: this means that articles have free availability on the public Internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from having access to the Internet itself.
All articles are published with free open access under the CC-BY Creative Commons attribution license (the current version is CC-BY, version 4.0). If you submit your paper for publication by the Eur J Clin Exp Med, you agree to have the CC-BY license applied to your work. Under this Open Access license, you, as the author, agree that anyone may download and read the paper for free. In addition, the article may be reused and quoted provided that the original published version is cited. This facilitates freedom in re-use and also ensures that Eur J Clin Exp Med content can be mined without barriers for the research needs.
