Advertisement

Current Urology Reports

, 18:69 | Cite as

Advances in Imaging in Prostate and Bladder Cancer

  • Abhishek Srivastava
  • Laura M. Douglass
  • Victoria Chernyak
  • Kara L. Watts
Urosurgery (P Sooriakumaran, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Urosurgery

Abstract

Recent advancements in urologic imaging techniques aim to improve the initial detection of urologic malignancies and subsequent recurrence and to more accurately stage disease. This allows the urologist to make better informed treatment decisions. In particular, exciting advances in the imaging of prostate cancer and bladder cancer have recently emerged including the use of dynamic, functional imaging with MRI and PET. In this review, we will explore these imaging modalities, in addition to new sonography techniques and CT, and how they hope to improve the diagnosis and management of prostate and bladder cancer.

Keywords

Urosurgery MRI PET Urologic imaging techniques Bladder cancer Prostate cancer 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Abhishek Srivastava, Laura M. Douglass, Victoria Chernyak, and Kara L. Watts each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(1):7–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harvey CJ, et al. Applications of transrectal ultrasound in prostate cancer. Br J Radiol. 2012;85 Spec No 1:S3–17.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    •• Ahmed HU, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389(10071):815–22. First and largest trial presenting level 1b data evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of MP-MRI vs. TRUS against transperinal saturation biopsy.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Halpern EJ, Rosenberg M, Gomella LG. Prostate cancer: contrast-enhanced us for detection. Radiology. 2001;219(1):219–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Linden RA, et al. Contrast enhanced ultrasound flash replenishment method for directed prostate biopsies. J Urol. 2007;178(6):2354–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Xie SW, et al. Influence of serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, prostate volume, and PSA density on prostate cancer detection with contrast-enhanced sonography using contrast-tuned imaging technology. J Ultrasound Med. 2013;32(5):741–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Halpern EJ, et al. Contrast enhanced transrectal ultrasound for the detection of prostate cancer: a randomized, double-blind trial of dutasteride pretreatment. J Urol. 2012;188(5):1739–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Xie SW, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography with contrast-tuned imaging technology for the detection of prostate cancer: comparison with conventional ultrasonography. BJU Int. 2012;109(11):1620–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sano F, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography of the prostate: various imaging findings that indicate prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2011;107(9):1404–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li Y, et al. Diagnostic performance of contrast enhanced ultrasound in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Acad Radiol. 2013;20(2):156–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cornelis F, et al. Real-time contrast-enhanced transrectal US-guided prostate biopsy: diagnostic accuracy in men with previously negative biopsy results and positive MR imaging findings. Radiology. 2013;269(1):159–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Uemura H, et al. Usefulness of perflubutane microbubble-enhanced ultrasound in imaging and detection of prostate cancer: phase II multicenter clinical trial. World J Urol. 2013;31(5):1123–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ophir J, et al. Elastography: a quantitative method for imaging the elasticity of biological tissues. Ultrason Imaging. 1991;13(2):111–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Salomon G, et al. Evaluation of prostate cancer detection with ultrasound real-time elastography: a comparison with step section pathological analysis after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2008;54(6):1354–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhu Y, et al. Prostate cancer detection with real-time elastography using a bi-plane transducer: comparison with step section radical prostatectomy pathology. World J Urol. 2014;32(2):329–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pallwein L, et al. Sonoelastography of the prostate: comparison with systematic biopsy findings in 492 patients. Eur J Radiol. 2008;65(2):304–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Konig K, et al. Initial experiences with real-time elastography guided biopsies of the prostate. J Urol. 2005;174(1):115–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Salomon G, et al. Incremental detection rate of prostate cancer by real-time elastography targeted biopsies in combination with a conventional 10-core biopsy in 1024 consecutive patients. BJU Int. 2014;113(4):548–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    • Weinreb JC, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69(1):16–40. Updated PI-RADS—guidelines based on expert consensus of the international working group on prostate cancer. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bratan F, et al. How accurate is multiparametric MR imaging in evaluation of prostate cancer volume? Radiology. 2015;275(1):144–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    • Woo S, et al. Diagnostic performance of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 for detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2017. A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the diagnostic performance of PI-RADSv2 for the detection of PCa.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Itatani R, et al. Negative predictive value of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: outcome of 5-year follow-up in men with negative findings on initial MRI studies. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(10):1740–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Abd-Alazeez M, et al. The accuracy of multiparametric MRI in men with negative biopsy and elevated PSA level—can it rule out clinically significant prostate cancer? Urol Oncol. 2014;32(1):45.e17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Seo JW, et al. PI-RADS Version 2: detection of clinically significant cancer in patients with biopsy gleason score 6 prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017:W1–w9.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    • Schoots IG, et al. 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. 2015;68(3):438–50. A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence regarding the diagnostic benefits of MRI-Targeted biopsy versus TRUS-Biopsy.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lecouvet FE, et al. Can whole-body magnetic resonance imaging with diffusion-weighted imaging replace Tc 99m bone scanning and computed tomography for single-step detection of metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer? Eur Urol. 2012;62(1):68–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Robertson NL, et al.. Combined whole body and multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging as a 1-step approach to the simultaneous assessment of local recurrence and metastatic disease after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2017.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nelson SJ, et al. Metabolic imaging of patients with prostate cancer using hyperpolarized [1-(1)(3)C]pyruvate. Sci Transl Med. 2013;5(198):198ra108.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Minamimoto R, et al. The potential of FDG-PET/CT for detecting prostate cancer in patients with an elevated serum PSA level. Ann Nucl Med. 2011;25(1):21–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Brown AM, et al. Does focal incidental 18F-FDG PET/CT uptake in the prostate have significance? Abdom Imaging. 2015;40(8):3222–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jadvar H. Is there use for FDG-PET in prostate cancer? Semin Nucl Med. 2016;46(6):502–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jadvar H, et al. Baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters as imaging biomarkers of overall survival in castrate-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2013;54(8):1195–201.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bouchelouche K, et al. Imaging prostate cancer: an update on positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Curr Urol Rep. 2010;11(3):180–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    • Evangelista L, et al. 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(6):1040–8. A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating choline PET/CT for lymph node staging of PCa CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    • Evangelista L, et al. Choline PET or PET/CT and biochemical relapse of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Nucl Med. 2013;38(5):305–14. A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating choline PET/CT in detection of locoregional or distant metastases in PCa. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    • Mohsen B, et al. Application of C-11-acetate positron-emission tomography (PET) imaging in prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. BJU Int. 2013;112(8):1062–72. A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating C-acetate PET/CT imaging in PCa.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bouchelouche K, Choyke PL, Capala J. Prostate specific membrane antigen- a target for imaging and therapy with radionuclides. Discov Med. 2010;9(44):55–61.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Afshar-Oromieh A, et al. 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. 2014;41(1):11–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Afshar-Oromieh A, 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(5):887–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Park H, et al. Introducing parametric fusion PET/MRI of primary prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(4):546–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    American Cancer Society. Key statistics for bladder cancer. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2017.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Herr HW. Quality control in transurethral resection of bladder tumours. BJU Int. 2008;102(9 pt b):1242–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines: Bladder Cancer. Fort Washington: National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2017.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mitterberger M. Three-dimensional ultrasonography of the urinary bladder: preliminary experience of assessment in patients with haematuria. BJU Int. 2007;99(1):111–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kocakoc E. Detection of bladder tumors with 3-dimensional sonography and virtual sonographic cystoscopy. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27(1):45–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gupta VG. Contrast enhanced ultrasound in urothelial carcinoma of urinary bladder: an underutilized staging and grading modality. Cen Eur J Urol. 2016;69(4):360–5.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Li QY. Clinical utility of three-dimensional contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the differentiation between noninvasive and invasive neoplasms of urinary bladder. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(11):2936–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Alfred Witjes J. Updated 2016 EAU guidelines on muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer. Eur Urol. 2017;71(3):462–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Schmid SC. Prognostic value of computed tomography before radical cystectomy in patients with invasive bladder cancer: imaging predicts survival. World J Urol. 2016;34(4):569–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Barentsz JO. Primary staging of urinary bladder carcinoma: the role of MRI and a comparison with CT. Eur Radiol. 1996;6(2):129–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sevcenco S. Prospective evaluation of diffusion-weighted MRI of the bladder as a biomarker for prediction of bladder cancer aggressiveness. Urol Oncol. 2014;32(8):1166–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lee M.. Non-contrast magnetic resonance imaging for bladder cancer: fused high b value diffusion-weighted imaging and T2-weighted imaging helps evaluate depth of invasion. Eur Radiol., 2017.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Panebianco, V.. An evaluation of morphological and functional multi-parametric MRI sequences in classifying non-muscle and muscle invasive bladder cancer. Eur Radiol. 2017.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Papalia R. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in patients selected for radical cystectomy: detection rate of pelvic lymph node metastases. BJU Int. 2012;109(7):1031–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Nguyen HT. Prediction of chemotherapeutic response in bladder cancer using K-means clustering of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI pharmacokinetic parameters. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;41(5):1374–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hafeez S. Advances in bladder cancer imaging. BMC Med. 2013;11(1):104.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Sharma A. Utility of early dynamic and delayed post-diuretic (18)F-FDG PET/CT SUVmax in predicting tumour grade and T-stage of urinary bladder carcinoma: results from a prospective single centre study. Br J Radiol. 2017;90(1072):20160787.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Lu Y. Clinical value of FDG PET or PET/CT in urinary bladder cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(9):2411–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    • Soubra A. The diagnostic accuracy of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography in staging bladder cancer: a single-institution study and a systematic review with meta-analysis. World J Urol. 2016;34(9):1229–37. This is the most recent systematic review and meta-analysis of PET-CT for staging of bladder cancer. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Jeong IG. FDG PET-CT for lymph node staging of bladder cancer: a prospective study of patients with extended pelvic lymphadenectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(9):3150–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Pichler, R.. Pelvic lymph node staging by combined (18)F-FDG-PET/CT imaging in bladder cancer prior to radical cystectomy. Clin Genitourin Cancer, 2016.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Picchio M. Value of 11C-choline PET and contrast-enhanced CT for staging of bladder cancer: correlation with histopathologic findings. J Nucl Med (1978). 2006;47(6):938–44.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    de Jong IJ. Visualisation of bladder cancer using (11)C-choline PET: first clinical experience. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29(10):1283–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Brunocilla E. Diagnostic accuracy of (11)C-choline PET/CT in preoperative lymph node staging of bladder cancer: a systematic comparison with contrast-enhanced CT and histologic findings. Clin Nucl Med. 2014;39(5):e308–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Graziani T. 11C-choline PET/CT for restaging of bladder cancer. Clin Nucl Med. 2015;40(1):e1–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Maurer T. Diagnostic efficacy of [11C]choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography compared with conventional computed tomography in lymph node staging of patients with bladder cancer prior to radical cystectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;61(5):1031–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Brendle CBC. Simultaneously acquired MR/PET images compared with sequential MR/PET and PET/CT: alignment quality. Radiology. 2013;268(1):190–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Rosenkrantz AB. Comparison of coregistration accuracy of pelvic structures between sequential and simultaneous imaging during hybrid PET/MRI in patients with bladder cancer. Clin Nucl Med. 2015;40(8):637–41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    • Rosenkrantz AB. Prospective pilot study to evaluate the incremental value of PET information in patients with bladder cancer undergoing 18F-FDG simultaneous PET/MRI. Clin Nucl Med. 2017;42(1):e8–e15. Very recent prospective pilot study that showed benefit of PET-MRI as compared to MRI alone in identifying suspicious bladder and metastatic lesions. While preliminary, provides basis for continued research for the use of PET-MRI.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abhishek Srivastava
    • 1
  • Laura M. Douglass
    • 1
  • Victoria Chernyak
    • 2
  • Kara L. Watts
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Urology, Montefiore Medical CenterAlbert Einstein College of MedicineBronxUSA
  2. 2.Department of Radiology, Montefiore Medical CenterAlbert Einstein College of MedicineBronxUSA

Personalised recommendations