Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Multidisciplinary Management of Prostate Cancer pp 89–104Cite as

Early Diagnosis of Failure After Primary Treatment: Multiparametric MRI Versus PET-TC

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 881 Accesses

Abstract

Prostate cancer (PC) is the most common tumour type among men and is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths following lung cancer [1].

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Parker SL, Tong T, Bolden S, Wingo PA (1997) Cancer statistics, 1997. Cancer J Clin 47(1):5–27

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Filén F et al (2008) Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in localized prostate cancer: the Scandinavian prostate cancer group-4 randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 100(16):1144–1154

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Han M, Partin AW, Zahurak M, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI, Walsh PC (2003) Biochemical (prostate specific antigen) recurrence probability following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 169(2):517–523

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Grossfeld GD, Stier DM, Flanders SC et al (1998) Use of second treatment following definitive local therapy for prostate cancer: data from the caPSURE database. J Urol 160:1398–1404

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Freedland SJ, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, Eisenberger M, Partin AW (2006) Time to prostate specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy and risk of prostate cancer specific mortality. J Urol 176:1404–1408

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Amling CL, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML, Slezak JM, Zincke H (2001) Defining prostate specific antigen progression after radical prostatectomy: what is the most appropriate cut point? J Urol 165:1146–1151

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Svatek R, Karakiewicz PI, Shulman M, Karam J, Perrotte P, Benaim E (2006) Pre-treatment nomogram for disease-specific survival of patients with chemotherapy-naive androgen independent prostate cancer. Eur Urol 49(4):666–674

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. EAU (2012) Guidelines on prostate cancer. European Association of Urology, Arnhem

    Google Scholar 

  9. Roberts SG, Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Slezak JM, Zincke H (2001) PSA doubling time as a predictor of clinical progression after biochemical failure following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Mayo Clin Proc 76(6):576–581

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Marks RA, Koch MO, Lopez-Beltran A, Montironi R, Juliar BE, Cheng L (2007) The relationship between the extent of surgical margin positivity and prostate specific antigen recurrence in radical prostatectomy specimens. Hum Pathol 38(8):1207–1211

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Kattan MW et al (2007) Predicting the outcome of salvage radiation therapy for recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 25(15):2035–2041

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Loblaw D, Mendelson DS, Talcott JA et al (2004) American society of clinical oncology recommendations for the initial hormonal management of androgen sensitive metastatic, recurrent, or progressive prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 22:2927–2941

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Leventis AK, Shariat SF, Slawin KM (2001) Local recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Correlation of US features with prostatic fossa biopsy findings. Radiology 219:432–439

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Scattoni V, Montorsi F, Picchio M, Roscigno M, Salonia A, Rigatti P et al (2004) Diagnosis of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 93(5):680–688

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Goldenberg SL, Carter M, Dashefsky S, Cooperberg PL (1992) Sonographic characteristics of the urethrovesical anastomosis in the early post-radical prostatectomy patient. J Urol 147:1307–1309

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Picchio M, Crivellaro C, Giovacchini G, Gianolli L, Messa C (2009) PET-CT for treatment planning in prostate cancer. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 53(2):245–268

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schillaci O, Calabria F, Tavolozza M, Cicciò C, Carlani M, Caracciolo CR et al (2010) 18F-choline PET/CT physiological distribution and pitfalls in image interpretation: experience in 80 patients with prostate cancer. Nucl Med Commun 31(1):39–45

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hara T, Kosaka N, Shinoura N, Kondo T (1997) PET imaging of brain tumor with [methyl-11C]choline. J Nucl Med 38:842–847

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Khan N, Oriuchi N, Zhang H et al (2003) A comparative study of 11C-choline PET and [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose PET in the evaluation of lung cancer. Nucl Med Commun 24:359–366

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Picchio M, Treiber U, Beer AJ et al (2006) Value of 11C-choline PET and contrast-enhanced CT for staging of bladder cancer: correlation with histopathologic findings. J Nucl Med 47:938–944

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. García JR, Soler M, Blanch MA, Ramírez I, Riera E, Lozano P et al (2009) PET/CT with (11)C-choline and (18)F-FDG in patients with elevated PSA after radical treatment of a prostate cancer. Rev Esp Med Nucl 28(3):95–100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Picchio M, Messa C, Landoni C et al (2003) Value of [11C]choline-positron emission tomography for re-staging prostate cancer: a comparison with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography. J Urol 169:1337–1340

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Scher B, Seitz M, Albinger W et al (2007) Value of 11C choline PET and PET/CT in patients with suspected prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34:45–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Giovacchini G, Picchio M, Coradeschi E et al (2008) [(11)C]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 35:1065–1073

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rinnab L, Blumstein NM, Mottaghy FM et al (2007) 11C choline positron-emission tomography/computed tomography and transrectal ultrasonography for staging localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 99:1421–1426

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Schiavina R, Scattoni V, Castellucci P et al (2008) (11)C-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 54:392–401

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Calabria F, Chiaravalloti A, Tavolozza M, Ragano-Caracciolo C, Schillaci O (2013) Evaluation of extraprostatic disease in the staging of prostate cancer by F-18 choline PET/CT: can PSA and PSA density help in patient selection? Nucl Med Commun 2013 34(8):733–740

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M et al (2008) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol 53:68–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fazio F, Picchio M, Messa C (2004) Is 11C-choline the most appropriate tracer for prostate cancer? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31:753–756

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Heinisch M, Dirisamer A, Loidl W et al (2006) Positron emission tomography/computed tomography with F-18-fluorocholine for restaging of prostate cancer patients: meaningful at PSA < 5 ng/ml? Mol Imaging Biol 8(1):43–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Rinnab L, Mottaghy FM, Blumstein NM et al (2007) Evaluation of [11C]-choline positron-emission/computed tomography in patients with increasing prostate-specific antigen levels after primary treatment for prostate cancer. BJU Int 10(4):786–793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rinnab L, Simon J, Hautmann RE et al (2009) (11)C-choline PET/CT in prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 27(5):619–625

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Castellucci P, Fuccio C, Nanni C et al (2009) Influence of trigger PSA and PSA kinetics on 11C-choline PET/CT detection rate in patients with biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy. J Nucl Med 50(9):1394–1400

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Castellucci P, Fuccio C, Rubello D et al (2011) 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 38(1):55–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Giovacchini G, Picchio M, Scattoni V et al (2010) PSA doubling time for prediction of [(11)C]choline PET/CT findings in prostate cancer patients with biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37(6):1106–1116

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Giovacchini G, Picchio M, Briganti A et al (2010) [11C]-choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography to restage prostate cancer cases with biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy and no disease evidence on conventional imaging. J Urol 184(3):938–943

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Giovacchini G, Picchio M, Coradeschi E et al (2010) Predictive factors of (11)C-choline PET/CT in patients with biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37(2):301–309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Cimitan M, Bortolus R, Morassut S, Canzonieri V, Garbeglio A, Baresic T et al (2006) [18F]fluorocholine PET/CT imaging for the detection of recurrent prostate cancer at PSA relapse: experience in 100 consecutive patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 33(12):1387–1398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Krause BJ, Souvatzoglou M, Tuncel M et al (2008) The detection rate of (11)C-Choline-PET/CT depends on the serum PSA-value in patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 35:18–23

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Giovacchini G, Picchio M, Parra RG, Briganti A, Gianolli L, Montorsi F et al (2012) Prostate-specific antigen velocity versus prostate-specific antigen doubling time for prediction of 11C choline PET/CT in prostate cancer patients with biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. Clin Nucl Med 37(4):325–331

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Winter A, Uphoff J, Henke RP, Wawroschek F (2010) 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 84(4):418–423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Wo JY, Chen MH, Nguyen PL, Renshaw AA, Loffredo MJ, Kantoff PW et al (2009) Evaluating the combined effect of comorbidity and prostate-specific antigen kinetics on the risk of death in men after prostate-specific antigen recurrence. J Clin Oncol 27(35):6000–6005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Benchikh E, Fegoun A, Villers A, Moreau JL, Richaud P, Rebillard X et al (2008) PSA and follow-up after treatment of prostate cancer. Prog Urol 18(3):137–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Partin AW, Pearson JD, Landis PK, Carter HB, Pound CR, Clemens JQ et al (1994) Evaluation of serum prostate-specific antigen velocity after radical prostatectomy to distinguish local recurrence from distant metastases. Urology 43(5):649–659

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Schillaci O, Calabria F, Tavolozza M, Caracciolo CR, Finazzi Agrò E, Miano R et al (2012) Influence of PSA, PSA velocity and PSA doubling time on contrast-enhanced 18F-choline PET/CT detection rate in patients with rising PSA after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 39(4):589–596

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Picchio M, Briganti A, Fanti S et al (2011) 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 59(1):51–60

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Knopp MV, Giesel FL, Marcos H, von Tengg-Kobligk H, Choyke P (2001) Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in oncology. Top Magn Reson Imaging 12(4):301–308

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Seitz M, Shukla-Dave A, Bjartell A et al (2009) Functional magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 55(4):801–814

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Fuchsjäger M, Akin O, Shukla-Dave A, Pucar D, Hricak H (2009) The role of MRI and MRSI in diagnosis, treatment selection, and post-treatment follow-up for prostate cancer. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol 7(3):193–202

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Scattoni V, Montorsi F, Picchio M, Roscigno M, Salonia A, Rigatti P et al (2004) Diagnosis of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 93(5):680–688

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Alfarone A, Panebianco V, Schillaci O, Salciccia S, Cattarino S, Mariotti G et al (2012) Comparative analysis of multiparametric magnetic resonance and PET-CT in the management of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 84(1):109–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Kluwer W (2007) Perez and Brady’s principles and practice of radiation oncology, 5th edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  54. Somford DM, Fütterer JJ, Hambrock T, Barentsz JO (2008) Diffusion and perfusion MR imaging of the prostate. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 16(4):685–695

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Fuccio C, Rubello D, Castellucci P, Marzola MC, Fanti S (2011) Choline PET/CT for prostate cancer: main clinical applications. Eur J Radiol 80(2):50–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Sella T, Schwartz LH, Swindle PW et al (2004) Suspected local recurrence after radical prostatectomy: endorectal coil MR imaging. Radiology 231(2):379–385

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Casciani E, Polettini E, Carmenini E et al (2008) Endorectal and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for detection of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190(5):1187–1192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Sciarra A, Panebianco V, Salciccia S et al (2008) Role of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging in the detection of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 54(3):589–600

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Sciarra A, Musio D, Forte V, Gentile V et al (2013) Prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy: the role of 3-T diffusion imaging in multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 23(6):1745–1752

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Cirillo S, Petracchini M, Scotti L et al (2009) Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 Tesla to assess local recurrence following radical prostatectomy using T2-weighted and contrast-enhanced imaging. Eur Radiol 19(3):761–769

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Panebianco V, Sciarra A, Lisi D et al (2012) Prostate cancer: 1HMRS-DCEMR at 3T versus [(18)F]choline PET/CT in the detection of local prostate cancer recurrence in men with biochemical progression after radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). Eur J Radiol 81(4):700–708

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Somford DM, Fütterer JJ, Hambrock T, Barentsz JO (2008) Diffusion and perfusion MR imaging of the prostate. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 16(4):685–695

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Kilinç R, Doluoglu OG, Sakman B, Ciliz DS, Yüksel E, Adasan O et al (2012) The correlation between diffusion-weighted imaging an histopathological evaluation of 356 prostate biopsy sites in patients with prostatic diseases. Urology. doi:10.5402/2012/252846

    Google Scholar 

  64. Morgan VA, Riches SF, Giles S, Dearnaley D, de Souza NM (2012) Diffusion-weighted MRI for locally recurrent prostate cancer after external beam radiotherapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198(3):596–602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Giannarini G, Nguyen DP, Thalmann GN, Thoeny HC (2012) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging detects local recurrence after radical prostatectomy: initial experience. Eur Urol 61(3):616–620

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Vargas HA, Wassberg C, Akin O, Hricak H (2012) MR imaging of treated prostate cancer. Radiology 262(1):26–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, University of Rome, Viale Del Policlinico 155, Rome, 00161, Italy, Lazio

    Flavio Barchetti

  2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, IRCCS Neuromed, University Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy, Via Atinense, 18, Pozzilli (IS), 86077, Molise, Italy

    Ferdinando Calabria

  3. Department of Biopathology and Diagnostic Imaging and Department of Nuclear Medicine, IRCCS Neuromed, University Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy, Viale Oxford, 81, 00133, Rome, Italy, Lazio

    Orazio Schillaci

  4. Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology & Pathology, Sapienza University, Policlinico Umberto I, Viale Del Policlinico 155, Rome, 00161, Italy, Lazio

    Valeria Panebianco

Authors
  1. Flavio Barchetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ferdinando Calabria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Orazio Schillaci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Valeria Panebianco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valeria Panebianco .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Urology, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy

    Vincenzo Gentile

  2. Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology & Pathology, Sapienza University, Policlinico Umberto I, Latina, Italy

    Valeria Panebianco

  3. Dept. of Urology, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy

    Alessandro Sciarra

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Barchetti, F., Calabria, F., Schillaci, O., Panebianco, V. (2014). Early Diagnosis of Failure After Primary Treatment: Multiparametric MRI Versus PET-TC. In: Gentile, V., Panebianco, V., Sciarra, A. (eds) Multidisciplinary Management of Prostate Cancer. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04385-2_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04385-2_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-04384-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-04385-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation