Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bildgebende Diagnostik des fortgeschrittenen Prostatakarzinoms

Imaging diagnostics of advanced prostate cancer

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

Zusammenfassung

Die Diagnostik des Prostatakarzinoms stellt den behandelnden Urologen nach wie vor vor große Herausforderungen. Im Hinblick auf eine individualisierte und risikostratifizierte Evaluation unterschiedlicher Therapieoptionen ist eine exakte Diagnostik jedoch zur bestmöglichen Unterscheidung zwischen lokal begrenztem und fortgeschrittenem Prostatakarzinom unerlässlich. Die Bildgebung des fortgeschrittenen Prostatakarzinoms befindet sich aktuell aufgrund zahlreicher technischer Innovationen im Wandel. Während sich die cholinbasierte Hybrid-Positronenemissionstomographie/Computertomographie (-PET/CT) als neuer diagnostischer Parameter im Rahmen der Bildgebung des fortgeschrittenen Prostatakarzinoms im klinischen Alltag durchgesetzt hat, besitzen etablierte Methoden wie Magnetresonanztomographie (MRT) oder Knochenszintigraphie durch technische Weiterentwicklungen weiterhin großes diagnostisches Potenzial. Der gezielte Einsatz der Bildgebung beim fortgeschrittenen Prostatakarzinom kann helfen, eine auf den Patienten maßgeschneiderte onkologische Therapie anzubieten. Inwiefern hierdurch die Prognose des Patienten verbessert werden kann, ist Stand aktueller Forschung.

Abstract

The diagnostic approach to prostate cancer is still a big challenge for the treating physician. Regarding an individualized and risk-adapted evaluation of different therapeutic options, precise diagnostic tools are crucial to accurately distinguish between localized and advanced prostate cancer. Imaging of advanced prostate cancer is currently changing due to numerous technical innovations. While choline-based hybrid positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT) has been established as an important diagnostic tool in clinical imaging of advanced prostate cancer, well-investigated methods, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and bone scintigraphy are currently expanding the diagnostic potential due to technical improvements. The specific use of imaging for advanced prostate cancer may help to offer the patient a well-tailored oncologic therapy. Further research is needed to evaluate whether this individualized therapy can consistently improve the prognosis of patients suffering from advanced prostate cancer.

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. Robert Koch-Institut und die Gesellschaft der epidemiologischen Krebsregister in Deutschland e. V. (Hrsg) (2012) Krebs in Deutschland 2007/2008. RKI, Berlin, S 80–84

  2. Guillonneau BD, Fizazi K (2011) Natural history of patients presenting biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: some good news? Eur Urol 59(6):900–901

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mullins JK, Han M, Pierorazio PM et al (2012) Radical prostatectomy outcome in men 65 years old or older with low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 187(5):1620–1625

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Swanson GP, Thompson IM, Basler J (2006) Current status of lymph node-positive prostate cancer: incidence and predictors of outcome. Cancer 107(3):439–450

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Campbell SC, Klein EA, Levin HS et al (1995) Open pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: a reassessment. Urology 46(3):352–355

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Danella JF, deKernion JB, Smith RB et al (1993) The contemporary incidence of lymph node metastases in prostate cancer: implications for laparoscopic lymph node dissection. J Urol 149(6):1488–1491

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al (2010) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 59(1):61–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Turkbey B, Albert PS, Kurdziel K et al (2009) Imaging localized prostate cancer: current approaches and new developments. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192(6):1471–1480

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Amis ES Jr, Bigongiari LR, Bluth EI et al (2000) Pretreatment staging of clinically localized prostate cancer. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria. Radiology 215(Suppl):703–708

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hovels AM, Heesakkers RA, Adang EM et al (2008) The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol 63(4):387–395

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Pouliot F, Johnson M, Wu L (2009) Non-invasive molecular imaging of prostate cancer lymph node metastasis. Trends Mol Med 15(6):254–262

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Harisinghani MG, Barentsz J, Hahn PF et al (2003) Noninvasive detection of clinically occult lymph-node metastases in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 348(25):2491–2499

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Heesakkers RA, Hövels AM, Jager GJ et al (2008) 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 9(9):850–856

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Pinto F, Totaro A, Palermo G et al (2012) Imaging in prostate cancer staging: present role and future perspectives. Urol Int 88(2):125–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Seitz M, Stief CG, Reich O et al (2010) Diagnostic work-up for lymph node metastases of urological tumors. Urologe A 49(3):356–363

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Eiber M, Beer AJ, Holzapfel K et al (2010) Preliminary results for characterization of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer by diffusion-weighted MR-imaging. Invest Radiol 45(1):15–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Budiharto T, Joniau S, Lerut E et al (2011) Prospective evaluation of 11C-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for the nodal staging of prostate cancer with a high risk of lymph node metastases. Eur Urol 60(1):125–130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Giannarini G, Petralia G, Thoeny HC (2011) Potential and limitations of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in kidney, prostate, and bladder cancer including pelvic lymph node staging: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol 61(2):326–340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Zeisel SH (1981) Dietary choline: biochemistry, physiology, and pharmacology. Annu Rev Nutr 1:95–121

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Sutinen E, Nurmi M, Roivainen A et al (2004) Kinetics of ((11)C) choline uptake in prostate cancer: a PET study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31(3):317–324

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Ackerstaff E, Pflug BR, Nelson JB et al (2001) Detection of increased choline compounds with proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy subsequent to malignant transformation of human prostatic epithelial cells. Cancer Res 61(9):3599–3603

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Jong IJ de, Pruim J, Elsinga PH et al (2002) Visualization of prostate cancer with 11C-choline positron emission tomography. Eur Urol 42(1):18–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jong IJ de, Pruim J, Elsinga PH et al (2003) Preoperative staging of pelvic lymph nodes in prostate cancer by 11C-choline PET. J Nucl Med 44(3):331–335

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schiavina R, Scattoni V, Castellucci P et al (2008) 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 54(2):392–401

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hacker A, Jeschke S, Leeb K et al (2006) Detection of pelvic lymph node metastases in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer: comparison of (18F) fluorocholine positron emission tomography-computerized tomography and laparoscopic radioisotope guided sentinel lymph node dissection. J Urol 176(5):2014–2019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Scher B, Seitz M (2008) PET/CT imaging of recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 35(1):5–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Jadvar H (2011) Colonic FDG uptake pattern in subjects receiving oral contrast with no known or suspected colonic disease. Clin Nucl Med 36(9):754–756

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ravizzini G, Turkbey B, Kurdziel K et al (2009) New horizons in prostate cancer imaging. Eur J Radiol 70(2):212–226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Tilki D, Reich O, Graser A et al (2012) 18F-Fluoroethylcholine PET/CT identifies lymph node metastasis in patients with prostate-specific antigen failure after radical prostatectomy but underestimates its extent. Eur Urol 57(23):8041–8059

    Google Scholar 

  30. Poulsen MH, Bouchelouche K, Gerke O et al (2010) [18F]-fluorocholine positron-emission/computed tomography for lymph node staging of patients with prostate cancer: preliminary results of a prospective study. BJU Int 106(5):639–644

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Thurairaja R, McFarlane J, Traill Z et al (2004) State-of-the-art approaches to detecting early bone metastasis in prostate cancer. BJU Int 94(3):268–271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Taoka T, Mayr NA, Lee HJ et al (2001) Factors influencing visualization of vertebral metastases on MR imaging versus bone scintigraphy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176(6):1525–1530

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Messiou C, Cook G, deSouza NM (2009) Imaging metastatic bone disease from carcinoma of the prostate. Br J Cancer 101(8):1225–1232

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Pollen JJ, Witztum KF, Ashburn WL (1984) The flare phenomenon on radionuclide bone scan in metastatic prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 142(4):773–776

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Nozaki T, Yasuda K, Akashi T et al (2008) Usefulness of single photon emission computed tomography imaging in the detection of lumbar vertebral metastases from prostate cancer. Int J Urol 15(6):516–519

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Even-Sapir E, Metser U, Mishani E et al (2006) The detection of bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: 99mTc-MDP Planar bone scintigraphy, single- and multi-field-of-view SPECT, 18F-fluoride PET, and 18F-fluoride PET/CT. J Nucl Med 47(2):287–297

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Link TM, Sciuk J, Fründt H et al (1995) Spinal metastases. Value of diagnostic procedures in the initial diagnosis and follow-up. Radiologe 35(1):21–27

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Lecouvet FE, Geukens D, Stainier A et al (2007) Magnetic resonance imaging of the axial skeleton for detecting bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: diagnostic and cost-effectiveness and comparison with current detection strategies. J Clin Oncol 25(22):3281–3287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Algra PR, Bloem JL, Tissing H et al (1991) Detection of vertebral metastases: comparison between MR imaging and bone scintigraphy. Radiographics 11(2):219–232

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Gutzeit A, Doert A, Froehlich JM et al (2010) Comparison of diffusion-weighted whole body MRI and skeletal scintigraphy for the detection of bone metastases in patients with prostate or breast carcinoma. Skeletal Radiol 39(4):333–343

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Reischauer C, Froehlich JM, Koh DM et al (2010) Bone metastases from prostate cancer: assessing treatment response by using diffusion-weighted imaging and functional diffusion maps – initial observations. Radiology 257(2):523–531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Reske SN, Kotzerke J (2001) FDG-PET for clinical use. Results of the 3rd German Interdisciplinary Consensus Conference, „Onko-PET III“, 21 July and 19 September 2000. Eur J Nucl Med 28(11):1707–1723

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Hofer C, Laubenbacher C, Block T et al (1999) Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography is useless for the detection of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 36(1):31–35

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Akin O, Hricak H (2007) Imaging of prostate cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 45(1):207–222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Schoder H, Larson SM (2004) Positron emission tomography for prostate, bladder, and renal cancer. Semin Nucl Med 34(4):274–292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Seitz M, Shukla-Dave A, Bjartell A et al (2004) Was leistet die Skelettszintigraphie beim Staging des Prostatakarzinoms: Ein Vergleich mit der 11C-Cholin-PET/CT und der 18F-Flourid-PET. Urologe A 234(Suppl 1)

  47. Fuccio C, Castellucci P, Schiavina R et al (2010) Role of 11C-choline PET/CT in the restaging of prostate cancer patients showing a single lesion on bone scintigraphy. Ann Nucl Med 24(6):485–492

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Boorjian SA, Thompson RH, Tollefson MK et al (2011) Long-term risk of clinical progression after biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy: the impact of time from surgery to recurrence. Eur Urol 59(6):893–899

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Simmons MN, Stephenson AJ, Klein EA (2007) Natural history of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: risk assessment for secondary therapy. Eur Urol 51(5):1175–1184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Sivalingam S, Oxley J, Probert JL et al (2007) Role of pelvic lymphadenectomy in prostate cancer management. Urology 69(2):203–209

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Bott SR (2004) Management of recurrent disease after radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 7(3):211–216

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Krämer S, Görich J, Gottfried HW et al (1997) Sensitivity of computed tomography in detecting local recurrence of prostatic carcinoma following radical prostatectomy. Br J Radiol 70(838):995–999

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. 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 

  54. Silverman JM, Krebs TL (1997) MR imaging evaluation with a transrectal surface coil of local recurrence of prostatic cancer in men who have undergone radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 168(2):379–385

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Coakley FV, Teh HS, Qayyum A et al (2004) Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging for locally recurrent prostate cancer after external beam radiation therapy: preliminary experience. Radiology 233(2):441–448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. 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 100(4):786–793

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Krause BJ, Souvatzoglou M, Tuncel M et al (2008) The detection rate of (11C) choline-PET/CT depends on the serum PSA-value in patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 35(1):18–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. 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 

  60. Krause BJ, Souvatzoglou M, Treiber U (2011) Imaging of prostate cancer with PET/CT and radioactively labeled choline derivates. Urol Oncol (Epub ahead of print)

  61. Pandit-Taskar N, O’Donoghue JA, Morris MJ et al (2008) Antibody mass escalation study in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer using 111In-J591: lesion detectability and dosimetric projections for 90Y radioimmunotherapy. J Nucl Med 49(7):1066–1074

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Milowsky MI, Nanus DM, Kostakoglu L et al (2004) Phase I trial of yttrium-90-labeled anti-prostate-specific membrane antigen monoclonal antibody J591 for androgen-independent prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 22(13):2522–2531

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Husarik DB, Miralbell R, Dubs M et al (2008) Evaluation of [(18)F]-choline PET/CT for staging and restaging of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 35:253–263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Graute V, Jansen N, Ubleis C et al. (2012) Relationship between PSA kinetics and [18F]fluorocholine PET/CT detection rates of recurrence in patients with prostate cancer after total prostatectomy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 39:271–282

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt für sich und seine Koautoren an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urologische Klinik und Poliklinik, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, München, Deutschland

    A. Kretschmer, C.G. Stief & D. Tilki

  2. Uroclinic Bogenhausen, München, Deutschland

    M. Seitz

  3. Institut für Klinische Radiologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Deutschland

    A. Graser

  4. Department of Urology, University of California, Davis, Medical Center, Sacramento, CA, USA

    D. Tilki

Authors
  1. A. Kretschmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Seitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Graser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C.G. Stief
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. D. Tilki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Kretschmer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kretschmer, A., Seitz, M., Graser, A. et al. Bildgebende Diagnostik des fortgeschrittenen Prostatakarzinoms. Urologe 52, 497–503 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-012-3095-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-012-3095-z

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation