Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Die Vorsteherdrüse – was möchte der Urologe vom Radiologen wissen?

Prostate gland – what would urologists like to know from radiologists?

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Radiologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Eine gut hundertjährige Periode, in der die Vorsteherdrüse nur als Ganzes betrachtet und behandelt wurde, geht gerade vorüber. Eine hochauflösende Bildgebung liefert endlich tiefe Detailinformationen, neue Therapieformen können kleinste Ziele anvisieren. Dem lange bestehenden Patientenwunsch nach individueller „nichtinvasiver“ Diagnostik und Therapie von Prostataerkrankungen kann nun mit wirklich dazu passenden Konzepten geantwortet werden. Die klinische Verarbeitung und Anwendung der enormen Informationsfülle als individualisiertes Gesamtkonzept für den Patienten erfordern allerdings ein interdisziplinär eng verzahntes Räderwerk, welches herkömmliche Sprechstunden in jeder Hinsicht überfordert. Es ist Zeit für neue Konstrukte! Das Dienstleistungsprinzip einer einseitig gerichteten Befund- oder Therapieanforderung an den Urologen, Radiologen oder Strahlentherapeuten ist überholt, diese interdisziplinären Partner gehören nun zu einem gleichrangigen „Managementteam Prostata“.

Abstract

A more than 100-year period, where the prostate was only seen and treated as a whole is coming to an end right now. Finally, high resolution imaging is providing deep insights and detailed information so that new therapeutic procedures can aim for the smallest targets within the gland. The long-standing wish of patients for individual noninvasive diagnostics and treatment of prostate diseases can now be fulfilled by providing new tailored concepts; however, in order to transfer the enormous amount of new information into the specific clinical patient situation, a closely knit interdisciplinary approach is required. In this setting, the traditional outpatient consultation service is overstretched in every aspect. It is now the time for new innovative constructs. The current one-sided service concept for urologists, radiologists and radiation therapists is therefore behind the times and the development of a “prostate management team” with equally cooperating partners from each specialty is the task for the future.

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

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3

Literatur

  1. McNeal JE (1981) The zonal anatomy of the prostate. Prostate 2(1):35–49

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Whitmore WF Jr. (1963) The rationale and results of ablative surgery for prostatic cancer. Cancer 16:1119–1132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. European Association of Urology (2016) EAU-Guidelines on Management of Non-Neurogenic Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS), incl. Benign Prostatic Obstruction (BPO). https://uroweb.org/guideline/treatment-of-non-neurogenic-male-luts. Zugegriffen: 28 Mär 2017

    Google Scholar 

  4. Shim SR, Kanhai KJ, Ko YM, Kim JH (2017) Efficacy and safety of prostatic arterial embolization: systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression. J Urol 197(2):465–479

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wittekind CH (2017) TNM: Klassifikation maligner Tumoren, 8. Aufl.. ISBN 978-3527807598

    Google Scholar 

  6. Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF) (2016) Konsultationsfassung: Interdisziplinäre Leitlinie der Qualität S3 zur Früherkennung, Diagnose und Therapie der verschiedenen Stadien des Prostatakarzinoms, Langversion 4.0. http://leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/Prostatakarzinom.58.0.html. Zugegriffen: 28 Mär 2017

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Briers E, Bolla M, Bourke L, Cornford P, De Santis M, Henry AM, Joniau S, Lam TB, Mason MD, van der Poel HG, van der Kwast TH, Rouvière O, Wiegel T, Arfi N, van den Bergh RCN, van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch M, Fossati N, Gross T, Lardas M, Liew M, Moldovan P, Schoots IG, Willemse PM (2017) EAU-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer, European Association of Urology 2017, Update. http://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/09-Prostate-Cancer_2017_web.pdf. Zugegriffen: 05 Apr 2017

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chun FK, Briganti A, Graefen M, Montorsi F, Porter C, Scattoni V, Gallina A, Walz J, Haese A, Steuber T, Erbersdobler A, Schlomm T, Ahyai SA, Currlin E, Valiquette L, Heinzer H, Rigatti P, Huland H, Karakiewicz PI (2007) Development and external validation of an extended 10-core biopsy nomogram. Eur Urol 52(2):436–444

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Steuber T, Graefen M, Haese A, Erbersdobler A, Chun FK, Schlom T, Perrotte P, Huland H, Karakiewicz PI (2006) Validation of a nomogram for prediction of side specific extracapsular extension at radical prostatectomy. J Urol 175(3 Pt 1):939–944

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A, Gallina A, Farina E, Da Pozzo LF, Rigatti P, Montorsi F, Karakiewicz PI (2006) Validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of lymph node invasion based on the extent of pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 98(4):788–793

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kattan MW, Potters L, Blasko JC, Beyer DC, Fearn P, Cavanagh W, Leibel S, Scardino PT (2001) Pretreatment nomogram for predicting freedom from recurrence after permanent prostate brachytherapy in prostate cancer. Urology 58(3):393–399

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tan N, Margolis DJ, Lu DY, King KG, Huang J, Reiter RE, Raman SS (2015) Characteristics of detected and missed prostate cancer foci on 3‑T multiparametric MRI using an endorectal coil correlated with whole-mount thin-section histopathology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205(1):W87–W92

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Metzger GJ, Kalavagunta C, Spilseth B, Bolan PJ, Li X, Hutter D, Nam JW, Johnson AD, Henriksen JC, Moench L, Konety B, Warlick CA, Schmechel SC, Koopmeiners JS (2016) Detection of prostate cancer: quantitative multiparametric MR imaging models developed using registered correlative histopathology. Radiology 279(3):805–816

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Bott SR, Ahmed HU, Hindley RG et al (2010) The index lesion and focal therapy: an analysis of the pathological characteristics of prostate cancer. BJU Int 106:1607–1611

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Burchardt M, Engers R, Müller M et al (2008) Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading: evaluation using prostate cancer tissue microarrays. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 134:1071–1078

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB et al (2005) ISUP Grading Committee The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29:1228–1242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Helpap B, Egevad L (2007) The value of the modified Gleason grading system of prostate adenocarcinoma in routine urological diagnostics. Urologe A 46:59–629

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Descazeaud A, Rubin M, Chemama S et al (2006) Saturation biopsy protocol enhances prediction of pT3 and surgical margin status on prostatectomy specimen. World J Urol 24:676–680

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Jones JS, Patel A, Schoenfield L et al (2006) Saturation technique does not improve cancer detection as an initial prostate biopsy strategy. J Urol 175:485–488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Patel AR, Jones JS (2009) Optimalbiopsy strategies for the diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 19:232–237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Presti JC Jr., O’dowd GJ, Miller MC et al (2003) Extended peripheral zone biopsy schemes increase cancer detection rates and minimize variance in prostate specific antigen and age related cancer brates: results of a community multi-practice study. J Urol 169:125–129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Postema AW, De Reijke TM, Ukimura O, Van den Bos W, Azzouzi AR, Barret E, Baumunk D, Blana A, Bossi A, Brausi M, Coleman JA, Crouzet S, Dominguez-Escrig J, Eggener S, Ganzer R, Ghai S, Gill IS, Gupta RT, Henkel TO, Hohenfellner M, Jones JS, Kahmann F, Kastner C, Köhrmann KU, Kovacs G, Miano R, van Moorselaar RJ, Mottet N, Osorio L, Pieters BR, Polascik TJ, Rastinehad AR, Salomon G, Sanchez-Salas R, Schostak M, Sentker L, Tay KJ, Varkarakis IM, Villers A, Walz J, De la Rosette JJ (2016) Standardization of definitions in focal therapy of prostate cancer: report from a Delphi consensus project. World J Urol 34(10):1373–1382

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Filson CP, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ et al (2016) Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion biopsy: the role of systematic and targeted biopsies. Cancer 122:884–892

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong H et al (2013) Magnetic resonance imaging/ ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol 64:713–719

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bratan F, Niaf E, Melodelima C et al (2013) Influence of imaging and histological factors on prostate cancer detection and localisation on multiparametric MRI: a prospective study. Eur Radiol 23:2019–2029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Isebaert S, Van den Bergh L, Haustermans K et al (2013) Multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer localization in correlation to whole-mount histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging 37:1392–1401

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Rud E, Klotz D, Rennesund K et al (2014) Detection of the index tumor and tumor volume in prostate cancer using T2w and DW MRI alone. BJU Int 114(6b):E32–E42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Thompson JE, Moses D, Shnier R et al (2014) Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging guiding diagnostic biopsy detects significant prostate cancer, and could reduce unnecessary biopsies and over-detection: a prospective study. J Urol 192(1):67–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kuru TH, Roethke MC, Seidenader J et al (2013) Critical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging targeted, transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal fusion biopsy for detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 190:1380–1386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Abd-Alazeez M, Kirkham A, Ahmed HU et al (2014) Performance of multiparametric MRI in men at risk of prostate cancer before the first biopsy: a paired validating cohort study using template prostate mapping biopsies as the reference standard. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 17(1):40–46

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, Rouviere O, Logager V, Fütterer JJ, European Society of Urogenital Radiology (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22(4):746–757

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, Margolis D, Schnall MD, Shtern F, Tempany CM, Thoeny HC, Verma S, Weinreb JC (2016) PI-RADS Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 69(1):16–40

  33. Röthke M, Blondin D, Schlemmer HP, Franiel T (2013) PI-RADS- Klassifikation: Strukturiertes Befundungsschema für die MRT der Prostata. Fortschr Röntgenstr 185(3):253–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Arumainayagam N, Ahmed HU, Moore CM et al (2013) Multiparametric MR imaging for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: a validation cohort study with transperineal template prostate mapping as the reference standard. Radiology 268(3):761–769

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Schimmoller L, Quentin M, Arsov C et al (2013) Inter-reader agreement of the ESUR score for prostate MRI using in-bore MRI-guided biopsies as the reference standard. Eur Radiol 23:3185–3190

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Franz T, von Hardenberg J, Blana A, Cash H, Baumunk D, Salomon G, Hadaschik B, Henkel T, Herrmann J, Kahmann F, Köhrmann KU, Köllermann J, Kruck S, Liehr UB, Machtens S, Peters I, Radtke JP, Roosen A, Schlemmer HP, Sentker L, Wendler JJ, Witzsch U, Stolzenburg JU, Schostak M, Ganzer R (2017) MRI/TRUS fusion-guided prostate biopsy: value in the context of focal therapy. Urologe A 56(2):208–216

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Rider JR, Sandin F, Andrén O, Wiklund P, Hugosson J, Stattin P (2013) Long-term outcomes among noncuratively treated men according to prostate cancer risk category in a nationwide, population-based study. Eur Urol 63(1):88–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Baumunk D, Reunkoff R, Kushner J, Baumunk A, Kempkensteffen C, Steiner U, Weikert S, Moser L, Schrader M, Höcht S, Wiegel T, Miller K, Schostak M (2013) Interdisciplinary decision making in prostate cancer therapy – 5‑years’ time trends at the Interdisciplinary Prostate Cancer Center (IPC) of the Charité Berlin. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 13:83

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Valerio M, Ahmed HU, Emberton M, Lawrentschuk N, Lazzeri M, Montironi R, Nguyen PL, Trachtenberg J, Polascik TJ (2014) The role of focal therapy in the management of localised prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 66(4):732–751

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Ahmed HU (2014) Introduction-Targeting the lesion, not the organ. Urol Oncol 32(6):901–902

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. van den Bos W, Muller BG, Ahmed H, Bangma CH, Barret E, Crouzet S, Eggener SE, Gill IS, Joniau S, Kovacs G, Pahernik S, Rouvière O, de la Rosette JJ, Salomon G, Ward JF, Scardino PT (2014) Focal therapy in prostate cancer: international multidisciplinary consensus on trial design. Eur Urol 65(6):1078–1083

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Baco E, Ukimura O, Rud E, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A, Aron M, Palmer S, Matsugasumi T, Marien A, Bernhard JC, Rewcastle JC, Eggesbø HB, Gill IS (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging-transectal ultrasound image-fusion biopsies accurately characterize the index tumor: correlation with step-sectioned radical prostatectomy specimens in 135 patients. Eur Urol 67(4):787–794

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Le JD, Tan N, Shkolyar E, Lu DY, Kwan L, Marks LS, Huang J, Margolis DJ, Raman SS, Reiter RE (2015) Multifocality and prostate cancer detection by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. Eur Urol 67(3):569–576

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Radtke JP, Schwab C, Wolf MB, Freitag MT, Alt CD, Kesch C, Popeneciu IV, Huettenbrink C, Gasch C, Klein T, Bonekamp D, Duensing S, Roth W, Schueler S, Stock C, Schlemmer HP, Roethke M, Hohenfellner M, Hadaschik BA (2016) Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and MRI-Transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy for index tumor detection: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimen. Eur Urol 70(5):846–853

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Cash H, Günzel K, Maxeiner A, Stephan C, Fischer T, Durmus T, Miller K, Asbach P, Haas M, Kempkensteffen C (2016) Prostate cancer detection on transrectal ultrasonography-guided random biopsy despite negative real-time magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion-guided targeted biopsy: reasons for targeted biopsy failure. BJU Int 118(1):35–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Noto B, Büther F, Auf der Springe K, Avramovic N, Heindel W, Schäfers M, Allkemper T, Stegger L (2017) Impact of PET acquisition durations on image quality and lesion detectability in whole-body (68)Ga-PSMA PET-MRI. EJNMMI Res 7(1):12

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Danksagung

Die Autoren danken Frau Simone Nitschke und Frau Martina Leucke (Studien- und URBIT-Sekretariat) für ihr unermüdliches organisatorisches Wirken in den neuen Konstrukten.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Urologie und Kinderurologie, Universitätsklinikum Magdeburg A.ö.R., Leipziger Straße 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Deutschland

    U. B. Liehr, S. Blaschke, P. Mittelstädt, D. Schindele, J. J. Wendler & M. Schostak

  2. Urologische Praxis, Backnang, Deutschland

    D. Baumunk

  3. Klinik für Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Deutschland

    F. Fischbach, B. Friebe, M. Pech & J. Ricke

  4. Urologische Praxis, Berlin, Deutschland

    F. König

  5. Institut für Pathologie, Universitätsklinikum Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Deutschland

    A. Lemke & S. Siedentopf

  6. Urologische Praxis, Magdeburg, Deutschland

    M. Porsch

Authors
  1. U. B. Liehr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Baumunk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Blaschke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. F. Fischbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. B. Friebe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. F. König
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. A. Lemke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. P. Mittelstädt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. M. Pech
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. M. Porsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. J. Ricke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. D. Schindele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. S. Siedentopf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. J. J. Wendler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. M. Schostak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to U. B. Liehr.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

U.B. Liehr, D. Baumunk, S. Blaschke, F. Fischbach, B. Friebe, F. König, A. Lemke, P. Mittelstädt, M. Pech, M. Porsch, J. Ricke, D. Schindele, S. Siedentopf, J.J. Wendler und M. Schostak geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Additional information

Die Autoren J.J. Wendler und M. Schostak trugen zu gleichen Teilen zur Erstellung des Manuskripts bei.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liehr, U.B., Baumunk, D., Blaschke, S. et al. Die Vorsteherdrüse – was möchte der Urologe vom Radiologen wissen?. Radiologe 57, 608–614 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-017-0273-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-017-0273-4

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation