Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Imaging biomarkers in prostate cancer: role of PET/CT and MRI

  • Review Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is currently the most widely used biomarker of prostate cancer (PCa). PSA suggests the presence of primary tumour and disease relapse after treatment, but it is not able to provide a clear distinction between locoregional and distant disease. Molecular and functional imaging, that are able to provide a detailed and comprehensive overview of PCa extension, are more reliable tools for primary tumour detection and disease extension assessment both in staging and restaging. In the present review we evaluate the role of PET/CT and MRI in the diagnosis, staging and restaging of PCa, and the use of these imaging modalities in prognosis, treatment planning and response assessment. Innovative imaging strategies including new radiotracers and hybrid scanners such as PET/MRI are also discussed.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Prensner JR, Rubin MA, Wei JT, Chinnaiyan AM. Beyond PSA: the next generation of prostate cancer biomarkers. Sci Transl Med. 2012;4:127rv3. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3003180.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Catalona WJ, Smith DS, Ratliff TL, Dodds KM, Coplen DE, Yuan JJ, et al. Measurement of prostate-specific antigen in serum as a screening test for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:1156–61. doi:10.1056/NEJM199104253241702.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Parkes C, Wald NJ, Murphy P, George L, Watt HC, Kirby R, et al. Prospective observational study to assess value of prostate specific antigen as screening test for prostate cancer. BMJ. 1995;311:1340–3.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent – update 2013. Eur Urol. 2014;65:124–37. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.09.046.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Stephenson AJ, Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Bianco Jr FJ, Yossepowitch O, Vickers AJ, et al. Prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy for patients treated in the prostate-specific antigen era. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4300–5. doi:10.1200/JCO.2008.18.2501.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Stapleton AM, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:766–71.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Eifler JB, Feng Z, Lin BM, Partin MT, Humphreys EB, Han M, et al. An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011. BJU Int. 2013;111:22–9. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11324.x.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ploussard G, Masson-Lecomte A, Beauval JB, Ouzzane A, Bonniol R, Buge F, et al. Radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer defined by preoperative criteria: oncologic follow-up in national multicenter study in 813 patients and assessment of easy-to-use prognostic substratification. Urology. 2011;78:607–13. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2011.05.021.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Abern MR, Terris MK, Aronson WJ, Kane CJ, Amling CL, Cooperberg MR, et al. The impact of pathologic staging on the long-term oncologic outcomes of patients with clinically high-risk prostate cancer. Cancer. 2014;120:1656–62. doi:10.1002/cncr.28647.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chamie K, Sonn GA, Finley DS, Tan N, Margolis DJ, Raman SS, et al. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in delineating clinically significant prostate cancer. Urology. 2014;83:369–75. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2013.09.045.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kwee SA, Coel MN, Lim J, Ko JP. Prostate cancer localization with 18fluorine fluorocholine positron emission tomography. J Urol. 2005;173:252–5. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000142099.80156.85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Reske SN, Blumstein NM, Neumaier B, Gottfried HW, Finsterbusch F, Kocot D, et al. Imaging prostate cancer with 11C-choline PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:1249–54.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Scher B, Seitz M, Albinger W, Tiling R, Scherr M, Becker HC, et al. Value of 11C-choline PET and PET/CT in patients with suspected prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:45–53. doi:10.1007/s00259-006-0190-7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Martorana G, Schiavina R, Corti B, Farsad M, Salizzoni E, Brunocilla E, et al. 11C-choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for tumor localization of primary prostate cancer in comparison with 12-core biopsy. J Urol. 2006;176:954–60. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2006.04.015. discussion 60.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. de Jong IJ, Pruim J, Elsinga PH, Vaalburg W, Mensink HJ. Visualization of prostate cancer with 11C-choline positron emission tomography. Eur Urol. 2002;42:18–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Yamaguchi T, Lee J, Uemura H, Sasaki T, Takahashi N, Oka T, et al. Prostate cancer: a comparative study of 11C-choline PET and MR imaging combined with proton MR spectroscopy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:742–8. doi:10.1007/s00259-004-1755-y.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Farsad M, Schiavina R, Castellucci P, Nanni C, Corti B, Martorana G, et al. Detection and localization of prostate cancer: correlation of (11)C-choline PET/CT with histopathologic step-section analysis. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1642–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sutinen E, Nurmi M, Roivainen A, Varpula M, Tolvanen T, Lehikoinen P, et al. Kinetics of [11C]choline uptake in prostate cancer: a PET study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:317–24. doi:10.1007/s00259-003-1377-9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Giovacchini G, Picchio M, Coradeschi E, Scattoni V, Bettinardi V, Cozzarini C, et al. [11C]choline uptake with PET/CT for the initial diagnosis of prostate cancer: relation to PSA levels, tumour stage and anti-androgenic therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:1065–73. doi:10.1007/s00259-008-0716-2.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Shields AF, Liu D, Gareen IF, Hunt E, et al. Relationship between cancer type and impact of PET and PET/CT on intended management: findings of the national oncologic PET registry. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1928–35. doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.056713.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Salminen E, Hogg A, Binns D, Frydenberg M, Hicks R. Investigations with FDG-PET scanning in prostate cancer show limited value for clinical practice. Acta Oncol. 2002;41:425–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Liu IJ, Zafar MB, Lai YH, Segall GM, Terris MK. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography studies in diagnosis and staging of clinically organ-confined prostate cancer. Urology. 2001;57:108–11.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kao PF, Chou YH, Lai CW. Diffuse FDG uptake in acute prostatitis. Clin Nucl Med. 2008;33:308–10. doi:10.1097/RLU.0b013e3181662f8b.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Oyama N, Akino H, Suzuki Y, Kanamaru H, Sadato N, Yonekura Y, et al. The increased accumulation of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose in untreated prostate cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 1999;29:623–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kato T, Tsukamoto E, Kuge Y, Takei T, Shiga T, Shinohara N, et al. Accumulation of [11C]acetate in normal prostate and benign prostatic hyperplasia: comparison with prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29:1492–5. doi:10.1007/s00259-002-0885-3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Oyama N, Akino H, Kanamaru H, Suzuki Y, Muramoto S, Yonekura Y, et al. 11C-acetate PET imaging of prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:181–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, Capitanio U, Gallina A, Suardi N, et al. Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol. 2012;61:480–7. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2011.10.044.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Heesakkers RA, Hovels AM, Jager GJ, van den Bosch HC, Witjes JA, Raat HP, et al. MRI with a lymph-node-specific contrast agent as an alternative to CT scan and lymph-node dissection in patients with prostate cancer: a prospective multicohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:850–6. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70203-1.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Schiavina R, Scattoni V, Castellucci P, Picchio M, Corti B, Briganti A, et al. 11C-choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for preoperative lymph-node staging in intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer: comparison with clinical staging nomograms. Eur Urol. 2008;54:392–401. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2008.04.030.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Evangelista L, Guttilla A, Zattoni F, Muzzio PC. Utility of choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography for lymph node involvement identification in intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2013;63:1040–8. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.09.039.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Heck MM, Souvatzoglou M, Retz M, Nawroth R, Kubler H, Maurer T, et al. Prospective comparison of computed tomography, diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and [11C]choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography for preoperative lymph node staging in prostate cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:694–701. doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2634-1.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Gandaglia G, Abdollah F, Schiffmann J, Trudeau V, Shariat SF, Kim SP, et al. Distribution of metastatic sites in patients with prostate cancer: a population-based analysis. Prostate. 2014;74:210–6. doi:10.1002/pros.22742.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 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;81:e893–6. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.04.027.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Segall GM. PET/CT with sodium 18F-fluoride for management of patients with prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:531–3. doi:10.2967/jnumed.113.133546.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Poulsen MH, Petersen H, Hoilund-Carlsen PF, Jakobsen JS, Gerke O, Karstoft J, et al. Spine metastases in prostate cancer: comparison of technetium-99m-MDP whole-body bone scintigraphy, [18F]choline positron emission tomography(PET)/computed tomography (CT) and [18F]NaF PET/CT. BJU Int. 2014;114:818–23. doi:10.1111/bju.12599.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Picchio M, Spinapolice EG, Fallanca F, Crivellaro C, Giovacchini G, Gianolli L, et al. [11C]Choline PET/CT detection of bone metastases in patients with PSA progression after primary treatment for prostate cancer: comparison with bone scintigraphy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:13–26. doi:10.1007/s00259-011-1920-z.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Challapalli A, Barwick T, Tomasi G, OD M, Contractor K, Stewart S, et al. Exploring the potential of [11C]choline-PET/CT as a novel imaging biomarker for predicting early treatment response in prostate cancer. Nucl Med Commun. 2014;35:20–9. doi:10.1097/MNM.0000000000000014.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Oyama N, Miller TR, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, Fischer KC, Michalski JM, et al. 11C-acetate PET imaging of prostate cancer: detection of recurrent disease at PSA relapse. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:549–55.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Morris MJ, Akhurst T, Larson SM, Ditullio M, Chu E, Siedlecki K, et al. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography as an outcome measure for castrate metastatic prostate cancer treated with antimicrotubule chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11:3210–6. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-2034.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Meirelles GS, Schoder H, Ravizzini GC, Gonen M, Fox JJ, Humm J, et al. Prognostic value of baseline [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and 99mTc-MDP bone scan in progressing metastatic prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:6093–9. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-1357.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Valerio M, Panebianco V, Sciarra A, Osimani M, Salsiccia S, Casciani L, et al. Classification of prostatic diseases by means of multivariate analysis on in vivo proton MRSI and DCE-MRI data. NMR Biomed. 2009;22:1036–46. doi:10.1002/nbm.1408.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Musio D, Forte V, Pace A, De Felice F, et al. Metabolic atrophy and 3-T 1H-magnetic resonance spectroscopy correlation after radiation therapy for prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2014;114:852–9. doi:10.1111/bju.12553.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Chen M, Dang HD, Wang JY, Zhou C, Li SY, Wang WC, et al. Prostate cancer detection: comparison of T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging, proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging, and the three techniques combined. Acta Radiol. 2008;49:602–10. doi:10.1080/02841850802004983.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Haghighi M, Shah S, Taneja SS, Rosenkrantz AB. Prostate cancer: diffusion-weighted imaging versus dynamic-contrast enhanced imaging for tumor localization – a meta-analysis. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2013;37:980–8. doi:10.1097/RCT.0b013e3182a3f9c7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Turkbey B, Mani H, Aras O, Ho J, Hoang A, Rastinehad AR, et al. Prostate cancer: can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance? Radiology. 2013;268:144–52. doi:10.1148/radiol.13121325.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Epstein JI, Chan DW, Sokoll LJ, Walsh PC, Cox JL, Rittenhouse H, et al. Nonpalpable stage T1c prostate cancer: prediction of insignificant disease using free/total prostate specific antigen levels and needle biopsy findings. J Urol. 1998;160:2407–11.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. McClure TD, Margolis DJ, Reiter RE, Sayre JW, Thomas MA, Nagarajan R, et al. Use of MR imaging to determine preservation of the neurovascular bundles at robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Radiology. 2012;262:874–83. doi:10.1148/radiol.11103504.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Sciarra A, Marcantonio A, Zini C, Salciccia S, et al. In vivo 3D neuroanatomical evaluation of periprostatic nerve plexus with 3T-MR diffusion tensor imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:1677–82. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.05.013.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Bolla M, van Poppel H, Tombal B, Vekemans K, Da Pozzo L, de Reijke TM, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: long-term results of a randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911). Lancet. 2012;380:2018–27. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61253-7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Wiegel T, Bottke D, Steiner U, Siegmann A, Golz R, Storkel S, et al. Phase III postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy compared with radical prostatectomy alone in pT3 prostate cancer with postoperative undetectable prostate-specific antigen: ARO 96-02/AUO AP 09/95. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:2924–30. doi:10.1200/JCO.2008.18.9563.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Bolla M, Van Tienhoven G, Warde P, Dubois JB, Mirimanoff RO, Storme G, et al. External irradiation with or without long-term androgen suppression for prostate cancer with high metastatic risk: 10-year results of an EORTC randomised study. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:1066–73. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70223-0.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Wang L, Hricak H, Kattan MW, Schwartz LH, Eberhardt SC, Chen HN, et al. Combined endorectal and phased-array MRI in the prediction of pelvic lymph node metastasis in prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:743–8. doi:10.2214/AJR.04.1682.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Harisinghani MG, Barentsz J, Hahn PF, Deserno WM, Tabatabaei S, van de Kaa CH, et al. Noninvasive detection of clinically occult lymph-node metastases in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2491–9. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa022749.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Fortuin AS, Smeenk RJ, Meijer HJ, Witjes AJ, Barentsz JO. Lymphotropic nanoparticle-enhanced MRI in prostate cancer: value and therapeutic potential. Curr Urol Rep. 2014;15:389. doi:10.1007/s11934-013-0389-7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Eiber M, Holzapfel K, Ganter C, Epple K, Metz S, Geinitz H, et al. Whole-body MRI including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for patients with recurring prostate cancer: technical feasibility and assessment of lesion conspicuity in DWI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;33:1160–70. doi:10.1002/jmri.22542.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Punnen S, Cooperberg MR, D’Amico AV, Karakiewicz PI, Moul JW, Scher HI, et al. Management of biochemical recurrence after primary treatment of prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2013;64:905–15. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.025.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Contractor K, Challapalli A, Barwick T, Winkler M, Hellawell G, Hazell S, et al. Use of [11C]choline PET-CT as a noninvasive method for detecting pelvic lymph node status from prostate cancer and relationship with choline kinase expression. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:7673–83. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-2048.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014;65:467–79. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.11.002.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Abdollah F, Briganti A, Montorsi F, Stenzl A, Stief C, Tombal B, et al. Contemporary role of salvage lymphadenectomy in patients with recurrence following radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2014. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.03.019.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Suardi N, Gandaglia G, Gallina A, Di Trapani E, Scattoni V, Vizziello D, et al. Long-term outcomes of salvage lymph node dissection for clinically recurrent prostate cancer: results of a single-institution series with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Eur Urol. 2015;67:299–309. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.02.011.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Picchio M, Briganti A, Fanti S, Heidenreich A, Krause BJ, Messa C, et al. The role of choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the management of patients with prostate-specific antigen progression after radical treatment of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2011;59:51–60. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2010.09.004.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Castellucci P, Fuccio C, Rubello D, Schiavina R, Santi I, Nanni C, et al. Is there a role for 11C-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. 2011;38:55–63. doi:10.1007/s00259-010-1604-0.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Mamede M, Ceci F, Castellucci P, Schiavina R, Fuccio C, Nanni C, et al. The role of 11C-choline PET imaging in the early detection of recurrence in surgically treated prostate cancer patients with very low PSA level <0.5 ng/mL. Clin Nucl Med. 2013;38:e342–5. doi:10.1097/RLU.0b013e31829af913.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Giovacchini G, Picchio M, Garcia-Parra R, Mapelli P, Briganti A, Montorsi F, et al. [11C]choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for early detection of prostate cancer recurrence in patients with low increasing prostate specific antigen. J Urol. 2013;189:105–10. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.09.001.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Evangelista L, Zattoni F, Guttilla A, Saladini G, Colletti PM, Rubello D. Choline PET or PET/CT and biochemical relapse of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Nucl Med. 2013;38:305–14. doi:10.1097/RLU.0b013e3182867f3c.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. 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. 2014;55:223–32. doi:10.2967/jnumed.113.123018.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Rinnab L, Mottaghy FM, Simon J, Volkmer BG, de Petriconi R, Hautmann RE, et al. [11C]Choline PET/CT for targeted salvage lymph node dissection in patients with biochemical recurrence after primary curative therapy for prostate cancer. Preliminary results of a prospective study. Urol Int. 2008;81:191–7. doi:10.1159/000144059.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Winter A, Uphoff J, Henke RP, Wawroschek F. First results of [11C]choline PET/CT-guided secondary lymph node surgery in patients with PSA failure and single lymph node recurrence after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urol Int. 2010;84:418–23. doi:10.1159/000296298.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Rigatti P, Suardi N, Briganti A, Da Pozzo LF, Tutolo M, Villa L, et al. Pelvic/retroperitoneal salvage lymph node dissection for patients treated with radical prostatectomy with biochemical recurrence and nodal recurrence detected by [11C]choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Eur Urol. 2011;60:935–43. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2011.07.060.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Winter A, Uphoff J, Henke RP, Wawroschek F. Complete PSA remission without adjuvant therapy after secondary lymph node surgery in selected patients with biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection. Adv Urol. 2012;2012:609612. doi:10.1155/2012/609612.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Jilg CA, Rischke HC, Reske SN, Henne K, Grosu AL, Weber W, et al. Salvage lymph node dissection with adjuvant radiotherapy for nodal recurrence of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2012;188:2190–7. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.041.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Würschmidt F, Petersen C, Wahl A, Dahle J, Kretschmer M. [18F]fluoroethylcholine-PET/CT imaging for radiation treatment planning of recurrent and primary prostate cancer with dose escalation to PET/CT-positive lymph nodes. Radiat Oncol. 2011;6:44. doi:10.1186/1748-717X-6-44.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Casamassima F, Masi L, Menichelli C, Bonucci I, Casamassima E, Lazzeri M, et al. Efficacy of eradicative radiotherapy for limited nodal metastases detected with choline PET scan in prostate cancer patients. Tumori. 2011;97:49–55.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Berkovic P, De Meerleer G, Delrue L, Lambert B, Fonteyne V, Lumen N, et al. Salvage stereotactic body radiotherapy for patients with limited prostate cancer metastases: deferring androgen deprivation therapy. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2013;11:27–32. doi:10.1016/j.clgc.2012.08.003.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Di Muzio N, Fodor A, Berardi G, Mapelli P, Gianolli L, Messa C, et al. Lymph nodal metastases: diagnosis and treatment. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;56:421–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Jereczek-Fossa BA, Rodari M, Bonora M, Fanti P, Fodor C, Pepe G, et al. [11C]choline PET/CT impacts treatment decision making in patients with prostate cancer referred for radiotherapy. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2014;12:155–9. doi:10.1016/j.clgc.2013.11.002.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Souvatzoglou M, Krause BJ, Purschel A, Thamm R, Schuster T, Buck AK, et al. Influence of (11)C-choline PET/CT on the treatment planning for salvage radiation therapy in patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2011;99:193–200. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2011.05.005.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Picchio M, Berardi G, Fodor A, Busnardo E, Crivellaro C, Giovacchini G, et al. (11)C-Choline PET/CT as a guide to radiation treatment planning of lymph-node relapses in prostate cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:1270–9. doi:10.1007/s00259-014-2734-6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Dost RJ, Glaudemans AW, Breeuwsma AJ, de Jong IJ. Influence of androgen deprivation therapy on choline PET/CT in recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(1):41–7. doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2398-7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Fuccio C, Schiavina R, Castellucci P, Rubello D, Martorana G, Celli M, et al. Androgen deprivation therapy influences the uptake of 11C-choline in patients with recurrent prostate cancer: the preliminary results of a sequential PET/CT study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1985–9. doi:10.1007/s00259-011-1867-0.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Chang CH, Wu HC, Tsai JJ, Shen YY, Changlai SP, Kao A. Detecting metastatic pelvic lymph nodes by 18F-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with prostate-specific antigen relapse after treatment for localized prostate cancer. Urol Int. 2003;70:311–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Schoder H, Herrmann K, Gonen M, Hricak H, Eberhard S, Scardino P, et al. 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography for the detection of disease in patients with prostate-specific antigen relapse after radical prostatectomy. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11:4761–9. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-0249.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Albrecht S, Buchegger F, Soloviev D, Zaidi H, Vees H, Khan HG, et al. (11)C-acetate PET in the early evaluation of prostate cancer recurrence. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:185–96. doi:10.1007/s00259-006-0163-x.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Fricke E, Machtens S, Hofmann M, van den Hoff J, Bergh S, Brunkhorst T, et al. Positron emission tomography with 11C-acetate and 18F-FDG in prostate cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:607–11. doi:10.1007/s00259-002-1104-y.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Pound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, Chan DW, Pearson JD, Walsh PC. Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 1999;281:1591–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Yossepowitch O, Bianco Jr FJ, Eggener SE, Eastham JA, Scher HI, Scardino PT. The natural history of noncastrate metastatic prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2007;51:940–7. Discussion 947–8. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2006.10.045.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Antonarakis ES, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Humphreys EB, Carducci MA, Partin AW, et al. The natural history of metastatic progression in men with prostate-specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy: long-term follow-up. BJU Int. 2012;109:32–9. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10422.x.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Jadvar H. Imaging evaluation of prostate cancer with (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT: utility and limitations. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(1):5–10. doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2361-7.

    PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Giovacchini G, Picchio M, Coradeschi E, Bettinardi V, Gianolli L, Scattoni V, et al. Predictive factors of [11C]choline PET/CT in patients with biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:301–9. doi:10.1007/s00259-009-1253-3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Giovacchini G, Picchio M, Garcia-Parra R, Briganti A, Abdollah F, Gianolli L, et al. 11C-choline PET/CT predicts prostate cancer-specific survival in patients with biochemical failure during androgen-deprivation therapy. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:233–41. doi:10.2967/jnumed.113.123380.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Musio D, De Felice F, Proietti C, Indino EL, et al. Advanced imaging for the early diagnosis of local recurrence prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:827265. doi:10.1155/2014/827265.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Barchetti F, Panebianco V. Multiparametric MRI for recurrent prostate cancer post radical prostatectomy and postradiation therapy. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:316272. doi:10.1155/2014/316272.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Oka S, Hattori R, Kurosaki F, Toyama M, Williams LA, Yu W, et al. A preliminary study of anti-1-amino-3-18F-fluorocyclobutyl-1-carboxylic acid for the detection of prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:46–55.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Shoup TM, Olson J, Hoffman JM, Votaw J, Eshima D, Eshima L, et al. Synthesis and evaluation of [18F]1-amino-3-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid to image brain tumors. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:331–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Schuster DM, Nye JA, Nieh PT, Votaw JR, Halkar RK, Issa MM, et al. Initial experience with the radiotracer anti-1-amino-3-[18F]fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid (anti-[18F]FACBC) with PET in renal carcinoma. Mol Imaging Biol. 2009;11:434–8. doi:10.1007/s11307-009-0220-5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Schuster DM, Savir-Baruch B, Nieh PT, Master VA, Halkar RK, Rossi PJ, et al. Detection of recurrent prostate carcinoma with anti-1-amino-3-18F-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid PET/CT and 111In-capromab pendetide SPECT/CT. Radiology. 2011;259:852–61. doi:10.1148/radiol.11102023.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Sorensen M, Mikkelsen KS, Frisch K, Villadsen GE, Keiding S. Regional metabolic liver function measured in patients with cirrhosis by 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-galactose PET/CT. J Hepatol. 2013;58:1119–24. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2013.01.012.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Schuster DM, Taleghani PA, Nieh PT, Master VA, Amzat R, Savir-Baruch B, et al. Characterization of primary prostate carcinoma by anti-1-amino-2-[18F]-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid (anti-3-[18F]FACBC) uptake. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;3:85–96.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Nanni C, Schiavina R, Boschi S, Ambrosini V, Pettinato C, Brunocilla E, et al. Comparison of F-FACBC and C-choline PET/CT in patients with radically treated prostate cancer and biochemical relapse: preliminary results. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40 Suppl 1:S11–7. doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2373-3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Eder M, Eisenhut M, Babich J, Haberkorn U. PSMA as a target for radiolabelled small molecules. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:819–23. doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2374-2.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Afshar-Oromieh A, Malcher A, Eder M, Eisenhut M, Linhart HG, Hadaschik BA, et al. PET imaging with a [68Ga]gallium-labelled PSMA ligand for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: biodistribution in humans and first evaluation of tumour lesions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:486–95. doi:10.1007/s00259-012-2298-2.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Afshar-Oromieh A, Haberkorn U, Hadaschik B, Habl G, Eder M, Eisenhut M, et al. PET/MRI with a 68Ga-PSMA ligand for the detection of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1629–30. doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2489-5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Mease RC, Foss CA, Pomper MG. PET imaging in prostate cancer: focus on prostate-specific membrane antigen. Curr Top Med Chem. 2013;13:951–62.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Afshar-Oromieh A, Zechmann CM, Malcher A, Eder M, Eisenhut M, Linhart HG, et al. Comparison of PET imaging with a 68Ga-labelled PSMA ligand and 18F-choline-based PET/CT for the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:11–20. doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2525-5.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Souvatzoglou M, Eiber M, Takei T, Furst S, Maurer T, Gaertner F, et al. Comparison of integrated whole-body [11C]choline PET/MR with PET/CT in patients with prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1486–99. doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2467-y.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Souvatzoglou M, Eiber M, Martinez-Moeller A, Furst S, Holzapfel K, Maurer T, et al. PET/MR in prostate cancer: technical aspects and potential diagnostic value. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40 Suppl 1:S79–88. doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2445-4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Panebianco V, Sciarra A, Marcantonio A, Forte V, Biondi T, Laghi A, et al. Conventional imaging and multiparametric magnetic resonance (MRI, MRS, DWI, MRP) in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;56:331–42.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Thorwarth DL, Mönnich D. Potential role of PET/MRI in radiotherapy treatment planning. Clin Transl Imaging. 2013;1:45–51.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Wetter A, Lipponer C, Nensa F, Heusch P, Rubben H, Altenbernd JC, et al. Evaluation of the PET component of simultaneous [18F]choline PET/MRI in prostate cancer: comparison with [18F]choline PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:79–88. doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2560-2.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Lord M, Ratib O, Vallee JP. (1)(8)F-Fluorocholine integrated PET/MRI for the initial staging of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:2288. doi:10.1007/s00259-011-1837-6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. de Perrot T, Rager O, Scheffler M, Lord M, Pusztaszeri M, Iselin C, et al. Potential of hybrid (1)(8)F-fluorocholine PET/MRI for prostate cancer imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:1744–55. doi:10.1007/s00259-014-2786-7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Wetter A, Lipponer C, Nensa F, Beiderwellen K, Olbricht T, Rubben H, et al. Simultaneous 18F choline positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: initial results. Invest Radiol. 2013;48:256–62. doi:10.1097/RLI.0b013e318282c654.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Pace L, Nicolai E, Aiello M, Catalano OA, Salvatore M. Whole-body PET/MRI in oncology: current status and clinical applications. Clin Transl Imaging. 2013;1:31–44. doi:10.1007/s40336-013-0012-4.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Afshar-Oromieh A, Haberkorn U, Schlemmer HP, Fenchel M, Eder M, Eisenhut M, et al. Comparison of PET/CT and PET/MRI hybrid systems using a 68Ga-labelled PSMA ligand for the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer: initial experience. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:887–97. doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2660-z.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Ratib O, Beyer T. Whole-body hybrid PET/MRI: ready for clinical use? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:992–5. doi:10.1007/s00259-011-1790-4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nuclear Medicine Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy

    M. Picchio, P. Mapelli, E. Incerti & L. Gianolli

  2. Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy

    V. Panebianco & F. Barchetti

  3. Nuclear Medicine Unit, Policlinico S. Orsola Malpighi - University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    P. Castellucci, C. Nanni & S. Fanti

  4. Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy

    A. Briganti, G. Gandaglia & F. Montorsi

  5. University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy

    M. Kirienko

Authors
  1. M. Picchio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. Mapelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. V. Panebianco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. Castellucci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. E. Incerti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. Briganti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. G. Gandaglia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. M. Kirienko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. F. Barchetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. C. Nanni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. F. Montorsi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. L. Gianolli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. S. Fanti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Picchio.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Picchio, M., Mapelli, P., Panebianco, V. et al. Imaging biomarkers in prostate cancer: role of PET/CT and MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42, 644–655 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2982-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2982-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation