Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Imaging assessment of local recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy

  • Special Section : Prostate cancer update
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Definitive therapy for prostate cancer includes radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy. Treatment is elected based on patient preference, biological tumor factors, and underlying health. Post prostatectomy, men are surveyed for disease recurrence with serial PSA measurements, digital rectal exam, and imaging studies depending on nomogram predicted risk of local disease recurrence and distant metastasis. In men with rising PSA levels, pathologically incomplete surgical margins or, if symptoms of metastasis develop, imaging may be obtained to localize disease. In cases of known biochemical recurrence, imaging is used to target biopsy, to contour in salvage radiation therapy and to assess disease response. For local disease recurrence, the most commonly performed exams are pelvic MRI and transrectal US. CT can evaluate for lymph node metastasis, but is suboptimal in the evaluation of the prostatectomy bed. PET/CT and PET/MRI have been used successfully to evaluate for local disease recurrence. The PI-RADSv2.1 manual provides a risk level and lexicon for use in description of prostate carcinoma prior to prostatectomy, but does not address imaging features post-surgery. A detailed description of nodal, bony, and visceral metastasis is given elsewhere. This manuscript outlines the context in which appropriate imaging exams may be obtained and focuses on imaging findings concerning for local disease recurrence after prostatectomy on various imaging modalities including CT, US, MRI, and PET.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Gudelines) Prostate Cancer Version 3.2019 [Internet]. National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2019 [cited 2019 Aug 14]. Available from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf

  2. Cookson MS, Aus G, Burnett AL, Canby-Hagino ED, D’Amico AV, Dmochowski RR, et al. Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American Urological Association Prostate Guidelines for Localized Prostate Cancer Update Panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes. J Urol. 2007 Feb;177(2):540–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Roach M, Hanks G, Thames H, Schellhammer P, Shipley WU, Sokol GH, et al. Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Jul 15;65(4):965–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Nyarangi-Dix JN, Radtke JP, Hadaschik B, Pahernik S, Hohenfellner M. Impact of complete bladder neck preservation on urinary continence, quality of life and surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: a randomized, controlled, single blind trial. J Urol. 2013 Mar;189(3):891–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Walsh PC, Lepor H, Eggleston JC. Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: anatomical and pathological considerations. The Prostate. 1983;4(5):473–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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 Sep;168(3):1032–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gaker DL, Steel BL. Radical prostatectomy with preservation of urinary continence: pathology and long-term results. J Urol. 2004 Dec;172(6 Pt 2):2549–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Walz J, Burnett AL, Costello AJ, Eastham JA, Graefen M, Guillonneau B, et al. A critical analysis of the current knowledge of surgical anatomy related to optimization of cancer control and preservation of continence and erection in candidates for radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2010 Feb;57(2):179–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hernandez D, Salas D, Giménez D, Buitrago P, Esquena S, Palou J, et al. Pelvic MRI findings in relapsed prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Radiat Oncol. 2015 Dec 24;10(1):262.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Liauw SL, Pitroda SP, Eggener SE, Stadler WM, Pelizzari CA, Vannier MW, et al. Evaluation of the prostate bed for local recurrence after radical prostatectomy using endorectal magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Feb 1;85(2):378–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71(4):618–29.

  12. Froemming A, Verma S, Eberhardt SC, Oto A, Alexander L, Allen B, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria Post-Treatment Follow-up of Prostate Cancer [Internet]. American College of Radiology; 2017 [cited 2019 Nov 18]. Available from: https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69369/Narrative/

  13. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur Urol. 2019 Mar 18;

  14. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012 Apr;22(4):746–57.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Nguyen DP, Giannarini G, Seiler R, Schiller R, Thoeny HC, Thalmann GN, et al. Local recurrence after retropubic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer does not exclusively occur at the anastomotic site. BJU Int. 2013 Aug;112(4):E243-249.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Croke J, Malone S, Roustan Delatour N, Belanger E, Avruch L, Morash C, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy in prostate cancer: the case of the missing target. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Jul 15;83(4):1160–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang J, Kudchadker R, Choi S, Pettaway CA, Choi H, Hobbs BD, et al. Local recurrence map to guide target volume delineation after radical prostatectomy. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2014 Nov 1;4(6):e239–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hövels AM, Heesakkers RAM, Adang EM, Jager GJ, Strum S, Hoogeveen YL, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol. 2008 Apr 1;63(4):387–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Magnetta MJ, Catania R, Girometti R, Westphalen AC, Borhani AA, Furlan A. Prostate MRI: staging and decision-making. Abdom Radiol N Y. 2020 Feb 11;

  20. Nanni C, Schiavina R, Brunocilla E, Boschi S, Borghesi M, Zanoni L, et al. 18F-Fluciclovine PET/CT for the Detection of Prostate Cancer Relapse: A Comparison to 11C-Choline PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med. 2015 Aug;40(8):e386-391.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Fuccio C, Castellucci P, Schiavina R, Guidalotti PL, Gavaruzzi G, Montini GC, et al. Role of 11C-choline PET/CT in the re-staging of prostate cancer patients with biochemical relapse and negative results at bone scintigraphy. Eur J Radiol. 2012 Aug;81(8):e893-896.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Evangelista L, Zattoni F, Guttilla A, Saladini G, Zattoni F, Colletti PM, et al. Choline PET or PET/CT and biochemical relapse of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Nucl Med. 2013 May;38(5):305–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fanti S, Minozzi S, Castellucci P, Balduzzi S, Herrmann K, Krause BJ, et al. PET/CT with (11)C-choline for evaluation of prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence: meta-analysis and critical review of available data. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016 Jan;43(1):55–69.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Giovacchini G, Picchio M, Coradeschi E, Bettinardi V, Gianolli L, Scattoni V, et al. Predictive factors of [(11)C]choline PET/CT in patients with biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010 Feb;37(2):301–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kitajima K, Murphy RC, Nathan MA, Froemming AT, Hagen CE, Takahashi N, et al. Detection of recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: comparison of 11C-choline PET/CT with pelvic multiparametric MR imaging with endorectal coil. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med. 2014 Feb;55(2):223–32.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Mitchell CR, Lowe VJ, Rangel LJ, Hung JC, Kwon ED, Karnes RJ. Operational characteristics of (11)c-choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for prostate cancer with biochemical recurrence after initial treatment. J Urol. 2013 Apr;189(4):1308–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Nanni C, Zanoni L, Pultrone C, Schiavina R, Brunocilla E, Lodi F, et al. (18)F-FACBC (anti1-amino-3-(18)F-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid) versus (11)C-choline PET/CT in prostate cancer relapse: results of a prospective trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016 Aug;43(9):1601–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Reske SN, Blumstein NM, Glatting G. [11C]choline PET/CT imaging in occult local relapse of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008 Jan;35(1):9–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Scattoni V, Picchio M, Suardi N, Messa C, Freschi M, Roscigno M, et al. Detection of lymph-node metastases with integrated [11C]choline PET/CT in patients with PSA failure after radical retropubic prostatectomy: results confirmed by open pelvic-retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy. Eur Urol. 2007 Aug;52(2):423–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Umbehr MH, Müntener M, Hany T, Sulser T, Bachmann LM. The role of 11C-choline and 18F-fluorocholine positron emission tomography (PET) and PET/CT in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2013 Jul;64(1):106–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Odewole OA, Tade FI, Nieh PT, Savir-Baruch B, Jani AB, Master VA, et al. Recurrent prostate cancer detection with anti-3-[(18)F]FACBC PET/CT: comparison with CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016 Sep;43(10):1773–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Schuster DM, Nieh PT, Jani AB, Amzat R, Bowman FD, Halkar RK, et al. Anti-3-[(18)F]FACBC positron emission tomography-computerized tomography and (111)In-capromab pendetide single photon emission computerized tomography-computerized tomography for recurrent prostate carcinoma: results of a prospective clinical trial. J Urol. 2014 May;191(5):1446–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 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. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med. 2006 Feb;47(2):287–97.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Langsteger W, Balogova S, Huchet V, Beheshti M, Paycha F, Egrot C, et al. Fluorocholine (18F) and sodium fluoride (18F) PET/CT in the detection of prostate cancer: prospective comparison of diagnostic performance determined by masked reading. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Off Publ Ital Assoc Nucl Med AIMN Int Assoc Radiopharmacol IAR Sect Soc Of. 2011 Aug;55(4):448–57.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Hofman MS, Hicks RJ, Maurer T, Eiber M. Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen PET: Clinical Utility in Prostate Cancer, Normal Patterns, Pearls, and Pitfalls. Radiogr Rev Publ Radiol Soc N Am Inc. 2018 Feb;38(1):200–17.

  36. Perera M, Papa N, Christidis D, Wetherell D, Hofman MS, Murphy DG, et al. 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. 2016;70(6):926–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Calais J, Ceci F, Eiber M, Hope TA, Hofman MS, Rischpler C, et al. 18F-fluciclovine PET-CT and 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET-CT in patients with early biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy: a prospective, single-centre, single-arm, comparative imaging trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019 Sep;20(9):1286–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Leventis AK, Shariat SF, Slawin KM. Local recurrence after radical prostatectomy: correlation of US features with prostatic fossa biopsy findings. Radiology. 2001 May;219(2):432–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Rouvière O, Vitry T, Lyonnet D. Imaging of prostate cancer local recurrences: why and how? Eur Radiol. 2010 May 1;20(5):1254–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Naito S. Evaluation and management of prostate-specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2005 Jul;35(7):365–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Scattoni V, Montorsi F, Picchio M, Roscigno M, Salonia A, Rigatti P, et al. Diagnosis of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2004 Mar;93(5):680–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Deliveliotis C, Manousakas T, Chrisofos M, Skolarikos A, Delis A, Dimopoulos C. Diagnostic efficacy of transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostatic fossa in patients with rising PSA following radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2007 Jun;25(3):309–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Wasserman NF, Kapoor DA, Hildebrandt WC, Zhang G, Born KM, Eppel SM, et al. Transrectal US in evaluation of patients after radical prostatectomy. Part I. Normal postoperative anatomy. Radiology. 1992 Nov 1;185(2):361–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Connolly JA, Shinohara K, Presti JC, Carroll PR. Local recurrence after radical prostatectomy: characteristics in size, location, and relationship to prostate-specific antigen and surgical margins. Urology. 1996 Feb;47(2):225–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Saleem MD, Sanders H, Abu El Naser M, El-Galley R. Factors predicting cancer detection in biopsy of the prostatic fossa after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 1998 Feb;51(2):283–6.

  46. Krämer S, Görich J, Gottfried HW, Riska P, Aschoff AJ, Rilinger N, et al. Sensitivity of computed tomography in detecting local recurrence of prostatic carcinoma following radical prostatectomy. Br J Radiol. 1997 Oct;70(838):995–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kane CJ, Amling CL, Johnstone PAS, Pak N, Lance RS, Thrasher JB, et al. Limited value of bone scintigraphy and computed tomography in assessing biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2003 Mar 1;61(3):607–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None Applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Abdominal Radiology, Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

    Michael J. Magnetta & David Casalino

  2. Division of Abdominal Radiology, Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 5777 E. Mayo Blvd, PX SS01 RADLGY, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA

    Matthew T. Heller

Authors
  1. Michael J. Magnetta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Casalino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matthew T. Heller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew T. Heller.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors have no financial or other disclosures relationship with any commercial organization that may have a direct or indirect interest in this manuscript. There is no conflict of interest to declare for this manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Magnetta, M.J., Casalino, D. & Heller, M.T. Imaging assessment of local recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Abdom Radiol 45, 4073–4083 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02505-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02505-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation