Advertisement

Introduction to Prostate Cancer

  • Gerasimos J. Alivizatos
  • Pavlos A. Pavlakis
Chapter

Abstract

Prostatic carcinoma is a common oncological problem, and even today many issues upon diagnosis, staging, and treatment selection remain controversial. Imaging modalities play a crucial role in the diagnosis, in staging, and in the follow-up period of treatment in patients with PCa. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment is a major problem, and until the biological characteristics of the aggressive tumors that need treatment are identified, screening cannot be advocated. New imaging technologies (MRI, PET scans) are being tested, and in some cases, they offer extra information to the clinicians. The goal of every urologist is to intervene when he believes that he will improve the survival of his patients without hampering the quality of their lives.

Keywords

Prostate cancer Imaging modalities Transrectal ultrasonography Computerized tomography (CT) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Positron emission tomography (PET) 

References

  1. 1.
    Center MM, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulent J et al (2012) International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol 61(6):1079–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM et al (2011) Global cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 61:69–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (2009) National health expenditure fact sheet. US Department of Health and Human Services, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB et al (2005) ISUP grading committee. The 2005 international society of urologic pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29(9):1228–1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sobin LH, Gospodariwicz M, Wittekind C (eds) (2009) TNM classification of malignant tumours. UICC international union against cancer, 7th edn. Wiley, New York, pp 243–248Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al (2011) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 59(1):61–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ et al (2009) Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 360(13):1320–1328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3rd et al (2009) Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med 360(13):1310–1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Xiaoye Z, Albertsen P, Andriole G et al (2012) Risk based prostate cancer screening. Eur Urol 61(4):652–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gravas S, Mamoulakis C, Rioja J et al (2009) Advances in ultrasound technology in oncologic urology. Urol Clin N Am 36(2):133–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM et al (2001) Contemporary update of the prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin tables) for the new millennium. Urology 58(6):843–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pinto F, Totaro A, Palermo G et al (2012) Imaging in prostate cancer staging: present role and future perspectives. Urol Int 88(2):125–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cagiannos I, Karakiewicz P, Eastham JA et al (2003) A preoperative nomogram identifying decreased risk of positive pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer. J Urol 170(5):1798–1803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haese A, Epstein JI, Huland H et al (2002) Validation of a biopsy-based pathologic algorithm for predicting lymph node metastases in patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer 95(5):1016–1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Castellucci P, Fuccio C, Rubello D et al (2011) Is there a role for C-choline PET/CT in the early detection of metastatic disease in surgically treated prostate cancer patients with a mild PSA increase <1.5 ng/ml? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38(1):55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.3rd Urological DepartmentHygeia HospitalAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations