Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Current Role of PET, CT, MR for Invasive Bladder Cancer

  • Urothelial Cancer (A Sagalowsky, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Imaging for urothelial cancer, particularly that located in the bladder, has generally been based on computed tomography (CT). However in more recent times the role of positron emission tomography-CT (PET-CT) has emerged and increasingly magnetic resonance (MR) imaging has become utilised. This concise review will outline the role of these modalities when dealing with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC).

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

  1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60:277–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kaufman DS, Shipley WU, Feldman AS. Bladder cancer. Lancet. 2009;374:239–49.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. •• Lee ST, Lawrentschuk N, Scott AM. Pet in prostate and bladder tumors. Semin Nucl Med. 2012;42:231–46. A comprehensive analysis on the limitations of staging as it currently stands for muscle invasive bladder cancer including with contemporary imaging.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Stenzl A, Cowan NC, De Santis M, Jakse G, Kuczyk MA, Merseburger AS. The updated eau guidelines on muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer. Eur Urol. 2009;55:815–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Nccn clinical practice guidelines in oncology (nccn guidelines®)-bladder cancer 2012 (Version 1, 2013).

  6. Bostrom PJ, van Rhijn BWG, Fleshner N, Finelli A, Jewett MA, Thoms J, et al. Staging and staging errors in bladder cancer. Eur Urol Suppl. 2010;9:2–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. • Vargas HA, Akin O, Schoder H, Olgac S, Dalbagni G, Hricak H, et al. Prospective evaluation of mri, (11)c-acetate pet/ct and contrast-enhanced ct for staging of bladder cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:4131–7. One of the few prospective studies examining CT, PET-CT and MR in a prospective fashion to stage bladder cancer.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Purysko AS, Leao Filho HM, Herts BR. Radiologic imaging of patients with bladder cancer. Semin Oncol. 2012;39:543–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. • Green DA, Durand M, Gumpeni N, Rink M, Cha EK, Karakiewicz PI, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in bladder cancer: Current status and emerging techniques. BJU Int. 2012;110:1463–70. A comprehensive analysis of the benefits and pitfalls of MR in bladder cancer as a staging tool for bladder cancer with a call for more prospective studies.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Giannarini G, Petralia G, Thoeny HC. 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. 2012;61:326–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lu YY, Chen JH, Liang JA, Wang HY, Lin CC, Lin WY, Kao CH. Clinical value of fdg pet or pet/ct in urinary bladder cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2011.

  12. Paik ML, Scolieri MJ, Brown SL, Spirnak JP, Resnick MI. Limitations of computerized tomography in staging invasive bladder cancer before radical cystectomy. J Urol. 2000;163:1693–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Anjos DA, Etchebehere EC, Ramos CD, Santos AO, Albertotti C, Camargo EE. 18f-fdg pet/ct delayed images after diuretic for restaging invasive bladder cancer. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:764–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kosuda S, Kison PV, Greenough R, Grossman HB, Wahl RL. Preliminary assessment of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with bladder cancer. Eur J Nucl Med. 1997;24:615–20.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Schoder H, Ong SC, Reuter VE, Cai S, Burnazi E, Dalbagni G, et al. Initial results with (11)c-acetate positron emission tomography/computed tomography (pet/ct) in the staging of urinary bladder cancer. Mol Imaging Biol. 2012;14:245–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Drieskens O, Oyen R, Van Poppel H, Vankan Y, Flamen P, Mortelmans L. Fdg-pet for preoperative staging of bladder cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:1412–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Harkirat S, Anand S, Jacob M. Forced diuresis and dual-phase f-fluorodeoxyglucose-pet/ct scan for restaging of urinary bladder cancers. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2010;20:13–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kibel AS, Dehdashti F, Katz MD, Klim AP, Grubb RL, Humphrey PA, et al. Prospective study of [18f]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for staging of muscle-invasive bladder carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4314–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bachor R, Kotzerke J, Reske SN, Hautmann R. Lymph node staging of bladder neck carcinoma with positron emission tomography. Urologe A. 1999;38:46–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Apolo AB, Riches J, Schoder H, Akin O, Trout A, Milowsky MI, et al. Clinical value of fluorine-18 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in bladder cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3973–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jadvar H, Quan V, Henderson RW, Conti PS. [f-18]-fluorodeoxyglucose pet and pet-ct in diagnostic imaging evaluation of locally recurrent and metastatic bladder transitional cell carcinoma. Int J Clin Oncol. 2008;13:42–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

No conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Melbourne, Australia

    Nathan Lawrentschuk, Sze Ting Lee & Andrew M. Scott

  2. Department of Surgery, Austin Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

    Nathan Lawrentschuk

  3. Centre for PET, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia

    Sze Ting Lee & Andrew M. Scott

  4. Department of Medicine, Austin Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

    Sze Ting Lee & Andrew M. Scott

Authors
  1. Nathan Lawrentschuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sze Ting Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrew M. Scott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathan Lawrentschuk.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lawrentschuk, N., Lee, S.T. & Scott, A.M. Current Role of PET, CT, MR for Invasive Bladder Cancer. Curr Urol Rep 14, 84–89 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-013-0308-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-013-0308-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation