Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The role of MRI for detection and staging of radio- and focal therapy-recurrent prostate cancer

  • Topic Paper
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Local recurrent prostate cancer after radical treatment is found in the majority of men with a rising PSA. Salvage treatment procedures for recurrent disease, such as radiation therapy and ablative procedures, can provide long-term responses in well-selected cases. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allows diagnosis and staging, and the value provides information on treatment selection, treatment planning and treatment guidance in local recurrent 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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Zumsteg ZS et al (2015) Anatomical patterns of recurrence following biochemical relapse in the dose escalation era of external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. J Urol 194:1624–1630

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Breeuwsma AJ et al (2010) Detection of local, regional, and distant recurrence in patients with psa relapse after external-beam radiotherapy using (11)C-choline positron emission tomography. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 77:160–164

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Philippou Y, Parker RA, Volanis D, Gnanapragasam VJ (2016) Comparative oncologic and toxicity outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy versus nonsurgical therapies for radiorecurrent prostate cancer: a meta-regression analysis. Eur Urol Focus 2:158–171

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. van der Poel HG et al (2018) Focal therapy in primary localised prostate cancer: the European association of urology position in 2018. Eur Urol 74:84–91

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Calais J et al (2018) Potential impact of (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT on prostate cancer definitive radiation therapy planning. J Nucl Med. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.209387(pii: jnumed.118.209387)

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Iravani A et al (2017) (68)Ga PSMA-11 PET with CT urography protocol in the initial staging and biochemical relapse of prostate cancer. Cancer Imaging 17:31

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Sathianathen NJ, Butaney M, Konety BR (2018) The utility of PET-based imaging for prostate cancer biochemical recurrence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2403-7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Koerber SA et al (2018) (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in primary and recurrent prostate carcinoma: implications for radiotherapeutic management in 121 patients. J Nucl Med (pii: jnumed.118.211086)

  9. Herlemann A et al (2017) Salvage lymph node dissection after (68)Ga-PSMA or (18)F-FEC PET/CT for nodal recurrence in prostate cancer patients. Oncotarget 8:84180–84192

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. von Eyben FE, Picchio M, von Eyben R, Rhee H, Bauman G (2016) (68)Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand positron emission tomography/computed tomography for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf (pii: S2405-4569(16)30160-2).

  11. Caroli P et al (2018) (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT in patients with recurrent prostate cancer after radical treatment: prospective results in 314 patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-4067-3

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Perera M et al (2016) Sensitivity, specificity, and predictors of positive (68)Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in advanced prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 70:926–937

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Maurer T, Eiber M, Schwaiger M, Gschwend JE (2016) Current use of PSMA-PET in prostate cancer management. Nature Rev Urol 13:226–235

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Eissa A et al (2018) The role of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT scan in biochemical recurrence after primary treatment for prostate cancer: a systematic review of literature. Miner Urol Nefrol. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.18.03081-3

  15. Perera M et al (2016) Sensitivity, specificity, and predictors of positive 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in advanced prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 70:926–937

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Giesel FL et al (2016) Intra-individual comparison of (68)Ga-PSMA-11-PET/CT and multi-parametric MR for imaging of primary prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43:1400–1406

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Zamboglou C et al (2017) Comparison of (68)Ga-HBED-CC PSMA-PET/CT and multiparametric MRI for gross tumour volume detection in patients with primary prostate cancer based on slice by slice comparison with histopathology. Theranostics 7:228–237

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Zattoni F et al (2017) Detection of recurrent prostate cancer after primary radiation therapy: an evaluation of the role of multiparametric 3T magnetic resonance imaging with endorectal coil. Pract Radiat Oncol 7:42–49

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sala E et al (2006) Endorectal MR imaging before salvage prostatectomy: tumor localization and staging. Radiology 238:176–183

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Akin O et al (2011) Incremental value of diffusion weighted and dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in the detection of locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiation treatment: preliminary results. Eur Radiol 21:1970–1978

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. de Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM (2016) Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for local staging of prostate cancer: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 70:233–245

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Weinreb JC et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69:16–40

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Grivas N et al (2018) Seminal vesicle invasion on multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with histopathology. Eur J Radiol 98:107–112

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Maurer T, Eiber M, Fanti S, Budaus L, Panebianco V (2016) Imaging for prostate cancer recurrence. Eur Urol Focus 2:139–150

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Schiavina R et al (2013) The dilemma of localizing disease relapse after radical treatment for prostate cancer: which is the value of the actual imaging techniques? Curr Radiopharmaceuticals 6:92–95

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Rouviere O, Vitry T, Lyonnet D (2010) Imaging of prostate cancer local recurrences: why and how? Eur Radiol 20:1254–1266

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Luzurier A et al (2018) Dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging in localizing local recurrence of prostate cancer after radiotherapy: limited added value for readers of varying level of experience. J Magn Reson Imaging 48(4):1012–1023

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Donati OF et al (2013) Multiparametric prostate MR imaging with T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences: are all pulse sequences necessary to detect locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiation therapy? Radiology 268:440–450

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lotte R et al (2018) Multiparametric MRI for suspected recurrent prostate cancer after HIFU: is DCE still needed? Eur Radiol 28(9):3760–3769

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Martino P et al (2011) Role of imaging and biopsy to assess local recurrence after definitive treatment for prostate carcinoma (surgery, radiotherapy, cryotherapy, HIFU). World J Urol 29:595–605

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Rouviere O et al (2010) Prostate cancer transrectal HIFU ablation: detection of local recurrences using T2-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Eur Radiol 20:48–55

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rosset R et al (2017) Can pre- and postoperative magnetic resonance imaging predict recurrence-free survival after whole-gland high-intensity focused ablation for prostate cancer? Eur Radiol 27:1768–1775

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Panebianco V et al (2014) Metabolic atrophy and 3-T 1H-magnetic resonance spectroscopy correlation after radiation therapy for prostate cancer. BJU Int 114:852–859

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Moman MR, van der Poel HG, Battermann JJ, Moerland MA, van Vulpen M (2010) Treatment outcome and toxicity after salvage 125-I implantation for prostate cancer recurrences after primary 125-I implantation and external beam radiotherapy. Brachytherapy 9:119–125

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. van den Bos W et al (2015) Salvage ablative therapy in prostate cancer: international multidisciplinary consensus on trial design. Urol Oncol 33(495):e491–497

    Google Scholar 

  37. Menard C et al (2015) MR-guided prostate biopsy for planning of focal salvage after radiation therapy. Radiology 274:181–191

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kanthabalan A et al (2015) The FORECAST study—focal recurrent assessment and salvage treatment for radiorecurrent prostate cancer. Contemporary Clin trials 44:175–186

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Golbari NM, Katz AE (2017) Salvage therapy options for local prostate cancer recurrence after primary radiotherapy: a literature review. Curr Urol Rep 18:63

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Miszczyk L, Stapor-Fudzinska M, Miszczyk M, Maciejewski B, Tukiendorf A (2018) Salvage cyberknife-based reirradiation of patients with recurrent prostate cancer: the single-center experience. Technol Cancer Res Treat 17:1533033818785496

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Mbeutcha A et al (2017) Salvage prostate re-irradiation using high-dose-rate brachytherapy or focal stereotactic body radiotherapy for local recurrence after definitive radiation therapy. Radiat Oncol 12:49

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Duijzentkunst DA, Peters M, van der Voort van Zyp JR, Moerland MA, van Vulpen M (2016) Focal salvage therapy for local prostate cancer recurrences after primary radiotherapy: a comprehensive review. World J Urol 34:1521–1531

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Peters M et al (2013) Patterns of outcome and toxicity after salvage prostatectomy, salvage cryosurgery and salvage brachytherapy for prostate cancer recurrences after radiation therapy: a multi-center experience and literature review. World J Urol 31:403–409

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Chade DC et al (2011) Salvage radical prostatectomy for radiation-recurrent prostate cancer: a multi-institutional collaboration. Eur Urol 60:205–210

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Peters M et al (2014) Focal salvage iodine-125 brachytherapy for prostate cancer recurrences after primary radiotherapy: a retrospective study regarding toxicity, biochemical outcome and quality of life. Radiother Oncol 112:77–82

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Hsu CC et al (2013) Feasibility of MR imaging/MR spectroscopy-planned focal partial salvage permanent prostate implant (PPI) for localized recurrence after initial PPI for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 85:370–377

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Maenhout M et al (2017) Second salvage high-dose-rate brachytherapy for radiorecurrent prostate cancer. J Contemp Brachytherapy 9:161–166

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Li YH et al (2015) Salvage focal prostate cryoablation for locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy: initial results from the cryo on-line data registry. Prostate 75:1–7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Mouraviev V, Spiess PE, Jones JS (2012) Salvage cryoablation for locally recurrent prostate cancer following primary radiotherapy. Eur Urol 61:1204–1211

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Valerio M et al (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion focal cryotherapy of the prostate: a prospective development study. Urol Oncol 35:150 e151–150 e157

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Overduin CG, Jenniskens SFM, Sedelaar JPM, Bomers JGR, Futterer JJ (2017) Percutaneous MR-guided focal cryoablation for recurrent prostate cancer following radiation therapy: retrospective analysis of iceball margins and outcomes. Eur Radiol 27:4828–4836

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Rouviere O, Sbihi L, Gelet A, Chapelon JY (2013) Salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation for prostate cancer local recurrence after external-beam radiation therapy: prognostic value of prostate MRI. Clin Radiol 68:661–667

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Coakley FV et al (2004) Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging for locally recurrent prostate cancer after external beam radiation therapy: preliminary experience. Radiology 233:441–448

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Panebianco V et al (2010) Role of magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging ([(1)H]MRSI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) in identifying prostate cancer foci in patients with negative biopsy and high levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA). Radiol Med (Torino) 115:1314–1329

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Alonzo F et al (2016) Detection of locally radio-recurrent prostate cancer at multiparametric MRI: Can dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging be omitted? Diagn Interventional Imaging 97:433–441

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Henk van der Poel, Nikos Grivas, Pim van Leeuwen, Stijn Heijmink & Ivo Schoots

  2. Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Henk van der Poel, Nikos Grivas, Pim van Leeuwen, Stijn Heijmink & Ivo Schoots

Authors
  1. Henk van der Poel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nikos Grivas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pim van Leeuwen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stijn Heijmink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ivo Schoots
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Protocol/project development: HP. Data collection or management: HP, NG. Data analysis: HP, NG, PL, SH, IS. Manuscript writing/editing: HP, NG, PL, SH, IS.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henk van der Poel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van der Poel, H., Grivas, N., van Leeuwen, P. et al. The role of MRI for detection and staging of radio- and focal therapy-recurrent prostate cancer. World J Urol 37, 1485–1490 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02677-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02677-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation