Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

New Imaging Techniques in Prostate Cancer

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Genitourinary Cancers

Part of the book series: Cancer Treatment and Research ((CTAR,volume 175))

Abstract

Rapid advances in diagnostic imaging have been developed in parallel with the changes in the contemporary management of prostate cancer. Increasingly, clinical management and decision making in prostate cancer are influenced by technologies such as magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsies for men with elevated PSA, imaging for active surveillance, and nuclear medicine studies for men with advanced or recurrent prostate cancer. Furthermore, novel imaging techniques have been developed such as hyperpolarized MRI, choline and prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography that exploit features like the unique metabolism in prostate cancer tissues, as well as altered glycoprotein conformation. These technologies have allowed for the identification of tiny foci of prostate cancer in men with early biochemical recurrence, greatly surpassing the limitations of traditional morphological imaging. With promising findings, studies are ongoing to uncover the clinical application of these imaging modalities. Ultimately, several factors such as cost-effectiveness and the overall reduction in disease mortality will dictate the implementation of these imaging technologies in the future. This chapter provides an overview on new and emerging prostate imaging techniques that can be used in the diagnosis of primary cancer as well as the staging and detection of metastatic disease.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2017) Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin 67(1):7–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Barrett T, Turkbey B, Choyke PL (2015) PI-RADS version 2: what you need to know. Clin Radiol 70(11):1165–1176

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22(4):746–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Nagarajan R, Margolis D, Raman S et al (2012) Correlation of Gleason scores with diffusion-weighted imaging findings of prostate cancer. Adv Urol 2012:374805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Haider MA, Yao X, Loblaw A, Finelli A (2016) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Clin Oncol [Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)] 28(9):550–567

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Valerio M, Donaldson I, Emberton M et al (2015) Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy: a systematic review. Eur Urol 68(1):8–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gayet M, van der Aa A, Beerlage HP, Schrier BP, Mulders PF, Wijkstra H (2016) The value of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography (MRI/US)-fusion biopsy platforms in prostate cancer detection: a systematic review. BJU Int 117(3):392–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. van Hove A, Savoie PH, Maurin C et al (2014) Comparison of image-guided targeted biopsies versus systematic randomized biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic literature review of well-designed studies. World J Urol 32(4):847–858

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MG (2015) 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 68(3):438–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. El-Shater Bosaily A, Parker C, Brown LC et al (2015) PROMIS–Prostate MR imaging study: A paired validating cohort study evaluating the role of multi-parametric MRI in men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer. Contemp Clin Trials 42:26–40

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Grenabo Bergdahl A, Wilderang U, Aus G et al (2015) Role of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer screening: a pilot study within the goteborg randomised screening trial. Eur Urol

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet

    Google Scholar 

  13. Rosenkrantz AB, Verma S, Choyke P et al (2016) Prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a prior negative biopsy: a consensus statement by AUA and SAR. J Urol 196(6):1613–1618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Vargas HA, Akin O, Shukla-Dave A et al (2012) Performance characteristics of MR imaging in the evaluation of clinically low-risk prostate cancer: a prospective study. Radiology 265(2):478–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T et al (2011) Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology 259(3):775–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. de Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM (2016) Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for local staging of prostate cancer: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 70(2):233–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lecouvet FE, El Mouedden J, Collette L et al (2012) Can whole-body magnetic resonance imaging with diffusion-weighted imaging replace Tc 99 m bone scanning and computed tomography for single-step detection of metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer? Eur Urol 62(1):68–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Shen G, Deng H, Hu S, Jia Z (2014) Comparison of choline-PET/CT, MRI, SPECT, and bone scintigraphy in the diagnosis of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Skeletal Radiol 43(11):1503–1513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wilson DM, Kurhanewicz J (2014) Hyperpolarized 13C MR for molecular imaging of prostate cancer. J Nucl Medicine Official Publ Soc Nucl Med 55(10):1567–1572

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Lupo JM, Chen AP, Zierhut ML et al (2010) Analysis of hyperpolarized dynamic 13C lactate imaging in a transgenic mouse model of prostate cancer. Magn Reson Imaging 28(2):153–162

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Albers MJ, Bok R, Chen AP et al (2008) Hyperpolarized 13C lactate, pyruvate, and alanine: noninvasive biomarkers for prostate cancer detection and grading. Cancer Res 68(20):8607–8615

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Nelson SJ, Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron DB et al (2013) Metabolic imaging of patients with prostate cancer using hyperpolarized [1-(1)(3)C]pyruvate. Science translational medicine. 5(198):198ra108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schuster DM, Nanni C, Fanti S (2016) PET Tracers Beyond FDG in Prostate Cancer. Semin Nucl Med 46(6):507–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. US Food and Drug Administration (2012) FDA approves 11C-choline for PET in prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 53(12):11N

    Google Scholar 

  25. Watanabe H, Kanematsu M, Kondo H et al (2010) Preoperative detection of prostate cancer: a comparison with 11C-choline PET, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET and MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 31(5):1151–1156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Testa C, Schiavina R, Lodi R et al (2007) Prostate cancer: sextant localization with MR imaging, MR spectroscopy, and 11C-choline PET/CT. Radiology 244(3):797–806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Budiharto T, Joniau S, Lerut E et al (2011) Prospective evaluation of 11C-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for the nodal staging of prostate cancer with a high risk of lymph node metastases. Eur Urol 60(1):125–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Evangelista L, Briganti A, Fanti S et al (2016) New clinical indications for (18)F/(11)C-choline, new tracers for positron emission tomography and a promising hybrid device for prostate cancer staging: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 70(1):161–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Treglia G, Ceriani L, Sadeghi R, Giovacchini G, Giovanella L (2014) Relationship between prostate-specific antigen kinetics and detection rate of radiolabelled choline PET/CT in restaging prostate cancer patients: a meta-analysis. Clin Chem Lab Med 52(5):725–733

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J et al (2014) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 65(2):467–479

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Leek J, Lench N, Maraj B et al (1995) Prostate-specific membrane antigen: evidence for the existence of a second related human gene. Br J Cancer 72(3):583–588

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. DeMarzo AM, Nelson WG, Isaacs WB, Epstein JI (2003) Pathological and molecular aspects of prostate cancer. Lancet (London, England) 361(9361):955–964

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Eder M, Eisenhut M, Babich J, Haberkorn U (2013) PSMA as a target for radiolabelled small molecules. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40(6):819–823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ghosh A, Heston WD (2004) Tumor target prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) and its regulation in prostate cancer. J Cell Biochem 91(3):528–539

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Maurer T, Eiber M, Schwaiger M, Gschwend JE (2016) Current use of PSMA-PET in prostate cancer management. Nat Rev Urol 13(4):226–235

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Silver DA, Pellicer I, Fair WR, Heston WD, Cordon-Cardo C (1997) Prostate-specific membrane antigen expression in normal and malignant human tissues. Clin Cancer Res Official J Am Assoc Cancer Res 3(1):81–85

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Bostwick DG, Pacelli A, Blute M, Roche P, Murphy GP (1998) Prostate specific membrane antigen expression in prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and adenocarcinoma: a study of 184 cases. Cancer 82(11):2256–2261

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Chang SS (2004) Overview of prostate-specific membrane antigen. Rev Urol 6(Suppl 10):S13–18

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Banerjee SR, Pullambhatla M, Byun Y et al (2010) 68 Ga-labeled inhibitors of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) for imaging prostate cancer. J Med Chem 53(14):5333–5341

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Eder M, Schafer M, Bauder-Wust U et al (2012) 68 Ga-complex lipophilicity and the targeting property of a urea-based PSMA inhibitor for PET imaging. Bioconjug Chem 23(4):688–697

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Bouchelouche K, Turkbey B, Choyke PL (2016) PSMA PET and radionuclide therapy in prostate cancer. Semin Nucl Med 46(6):522–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Eiber M, Weirich G, Holzapfel K et al (2016) Simultaneous 68 Ga-PSMA HBED-CC PET/MRI improves the localization of primary prostate cancer. Eur Urol 70(5):829–836

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Maurer T, Gschwend JE, Rauscher I et al (2016) Diagnostic efficacy of (68) Gallium-PSMA positron emission tomography compared to conventional imaging for lymph node staging of 130 consecutive patients with intermediate to high risk prostate cancer. J Urol 195(5):1436–1443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Eiber M, Nekolla SG, Maurer T, Weirich G, Wester HJ, Schwaiger M (2015) (68)Ga-PSMA PET/MR with multimodality image analysis for primary prostate cancer. Abdom Imaging 40(6):1769–1771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Herlemann A, Wenter V, Kretschmer A et al (2016) 68 Ga-PSMA positron emission tomography/computed tomography provides accurate staging of lymph node regions prior to lymph node dissection in patients with prostate cancer. Eur Urol 70(4):553–557

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Afshar-Oromieh A, Zechmann CM, Malcher A et al (2014) Comparison of PET imaging with a (68)Ga-labelled PSMA ligand and (18)F-choline-based PET/CT for the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 41(1):11–20

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Pfister D, Porres D, Heidenreich A et al (2016) Detection of recurrent prostate cancer lesions before salvage lymphadenectomy is more accurate with (68)Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC than with (18)F-Fluoroethylcholine PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43(8):1410–1417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Bluemel C, Krebs M, Polat B et al (2016) 68 Ga-PSMA-PET/CT in patients with biochemical prostate cancer recurrence and negative 18F-Choline-PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med 41(7):515–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Perera M, Papa N, Christidis D et al (2016) Sensitivity, specificity, and predictors of positive 68 Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in advanced prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 70(6):926–937

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 353 East 68th Street, New York, NY, 10065, USA

    Karim Marzouk & Behfar Ehdaie

Authors
  1. Karim Marzouk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Behfar Ehdaie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Behfar Ehdaie .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Siamak Daneshmand

  2. City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA

    Kevin G. Chan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Marzouk, K., Ehdaie, B. (2018). New Imaging Techniques in Prostate Cancer. In: Daneshmand, S., Chan, K. (eds) Genitourinary Cancers . Cancer Treatment and Research, vol 175. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93339-9_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93339-9_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-93338-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-93339-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation