Skip to main content

Molecular imaging and fusion targeted biopsy of the prostate

Clinical and Translational Imaging volume 5, pages 29–43 (2017)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

This paper provides a review on molecular imaging with positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for prostate cancer detection and its applications in fusion targeted biopsy of the prostate.

Methods

Literature search was performed through the PubMed database using the keywords “prostate cancer”, “MRI/ultrasound fusion”, “molecular imaging”, and “targeted biopsy”. Estimates in autopsy studies indicate that 50% of men older than 50 years of age have prostate cancer. Systematic transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy is considered the standard method for prostate cancer detection and has a significant sampling error and a low sensitivity. Molecular imaging technology and new biopsy approaches are emerging to improve the detection of prostate cancer.

Results

Molecular imaging with PET and MRI shows promising results in the early detection of prostate cancer. MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy has become a new clinical standard for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. PET molecular image-directed, three-dimensional ultrasound-guided biopsy is a new technology that has great potential for improving prostate cancer detection rate and for distinguishing aggressive prostate cancer from indolent disease.

Conclusion

Molecular imaging and fusion targeted biopsy are active research areas in prostate cancer research.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Reprint from Akbari et al. [98]

References

  1. Franks LM (1973) Proceedings: etiology, epidemiology, and pathology of prostatic cancer. Cancer 32(5):1092–1095

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Holund B (1980) Latent prostatic cancer in a consecutive autopsy series. Scand J Urol Nephrol 14(1):29–35

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2015) Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin 65(1):5–29

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Roehrborn CG, Andriole GL, Wilson TH, Castro R, Rittmaster RS (2011) Effect of dutasteride on prostate biopsy rates and the diagnosis of prostate cancer in men with lower urinary tract symptoms and enlarged prostates in the combination of avodart and tamsulosin trial. Eur Urol 59(2):244–249

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. de la Rosette J, Wink MH, Mamoulakis C, Wondergem N, ten Kate FJC, Zwinderman K, de Reijke TM, Wijkstra H (2009) Optimizing prostate cancer detection: 8 versus 12-core biopsy protocol. J Urol 182(4):1329–1335

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Presti JC, O’Dowd GJ, Miller MC, Mattu R, Veltri RW (2003) Extended peripheral zone biopsy schemes increase cancer detection rates and minimize variance in prostate specific antigen and age related cancer rates: results of a community multi-practice study. J Urol 169(1):125–129

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Pondman KM, Futterer JJ, ten Haken B, Kool LJS, Witjes JA, Hambrock T, Macura KJ, Barentsz JO (2008) MR-guided biopsy of the prostate: an overview of techniques and a systematic review. Eur Urol 54(3):517–527

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hricak H (2005) MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging in the pre-treatment evaluation of prostate cancer. Br J Radiol 78(2):S103–S111

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Iczkowski KA, Bassler TJ, Schwob VS, Bassler IC, Kunnel BS, Orozco RE, Bostwick DG (1998) Diagnosis of “suspicious for malignancy” in prostate biopsies: predictive value for cancer. Urology 51(5):749–757

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, Fenstermaker M, Mendhiratta N, Huang R, Deng F, Zhou M, Huang WC, Lepor H, Taneja SS (2015) The relationship of increasing MRI suspicion score and the identification of high grade prostate cancer on MRI fusion targeted biopsy. 2015 American Urological Association (AUA) Meeting, May 15–19, 2015, New Orleans, LA

  11. Meng M, Rosenkrantz AB, Mendhiratta N, Fenstermaker M, Huang R, Wysock J, Deng FM, Melamed J, Zhou M, Huang WC, Lepor H, Taneja SS (2015) Outcomes of MRI-US fusion targeted biopsy in the risk stratification of active surveillance candidates. 2015 American Urological Association (AUA) Meeting, May 15–19, 2015, New Orleans, LA

  12. Kardos SV, Pan S, Nawaf CB, Fan R, Cornfeld D, Weinreb J, Schulam PG, Sprenkle PC (2015) MRI-Fusion Prostate biopsy in first-time biopsy cohort yields increased detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using a simplified MRI grading scale. 2015 American Urological Association (AUA) Meeting, May 15–19, 2015, New Orleans, LA

  13. Jackson M, Haddock P, Staff I, Dorin R, Kesler S, O’Loughlin M, Meraney A, Wagner J (2015) Comparative assessment of gleason scoring of prostate biopsies obtained by standard TRUS and MRI-TRUS at follow up in active surveillance patients. 2015 American Urological Association (AUA) Meeting, May 15–19, 2015, New Orleans, LA

  14. Frye TP, Shakir N, Abboud S, George AK, Merino M, Choyke P, Turkbey B, Wood B, Pinto PA (2015) MRI-TRUS guided fusion biopsy to detect progression on active surveillance for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer. 2015 American Urological Association (AUA) Meeting, May 15–19, 2015, New Orleans, LA

  15. Macleod LC, Ellis WJ, Newcomb LF, Zheng Y, Brooks JD, Carroll PR, Gleave ME, Lance RS, Nelson PS, Thompson IM, Wagner AA, Wei JT, Yang HY, Lin DW (2015) Timing of the confirmatory biopsy in prostate cancer active surveillance: analysis of the canary prostate cancer active surveillance study (PASS). 2015 American Urological Association (AUA) Meeting, May 15–19, 2015, New Orleans, LA

  16. Satasivam P, Poon BY, Vargas HA, Vickers A, Eastham A (2015) Can confirmatory biopsy be skipped for active surveillance patients with negative MRI findings and a low number of positive cores on diagnostic biopsy? 2015 American Urological Association (AUA) Meeting, May 15–19, 2015, New Orleans, LA

  17. Salami S, Sonstegard AM, Yaskiv O, Turkbey B, Villani R, Ben-Levi E, Rastinehad A (2015) Utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in the evaluation of men for active surveillance of prostate cancer. 2015 American Urological Association (AUA) Meeting, May 15–19, 2015, New Orleans, LA

  18. Algohary A, Viswanath S, Prasanna P, Pahwa S, Gulani V, Moses D, Shnier R, Böhm M, Haynes AM, Brenner P, Delprado W, Thompson J, Pulbrock M, Stricker P, Ponsky L, Madabhushi A (2015) Quantitative assessment of T2-weighted MRI to better identify patients with prostate cancer in a screening population. 2015 American Urological Association (AUA) Meeting, May 15–19, 2015, New Orleans, LA

  19. Recabal P, Assel M, Lee D, Akin O, Coleman J, Tong A, Lee J, Eastham J, Salas E, Scardino P, Vargas A, Ehdaie B (2015) Accuracy of MRI-targeted biopsy to reclassify Gleason grade in men on active surveillance. 2015 American Urological Association (AUA) Meeting, May 15–19, 2015, New Orleans, LA

  20. Reichard CA, Haywood SC, Purysko A, Jones JS, Klein EA, Stephenson A (2015) MR-US fusion biopsy vs. TRUS saturation prostate biopsy in active surveillance. 2015 American Urological Association (AUA) Meeting, May 15–19, 2015, New Orleans, LA

  21. Puech P, Rouviere O, Renard-Penna R, Villers A, Devos P, Colombel M, Bitker MO, Leroy X, Mege-Lechevallier F, Comperat E, Ouzzane A, Lemaitre L (2013) Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy—prospective multicenter study. Radiology 268(2):461–469

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lawrence EM, Tang SY, Barrett T, Koo B, Goldman DA, Warren AY, Axell RG, Doble A, Gallagher FA, Gnanapragasam VJ, Kastner C, Sala E (2014) Prostate cancer: performance characteristics of combined T(2)W and DW-MRI scoring in the setting of template transperineal re-biopsy using MR-TRUS fusion. Eur Radiol 24(7):1497–1505

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, Rouviere O, Logager V, Futterer JJ (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22(4):746–757

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, Barentsz JO, Carey B, Futterer JJ, Heijmink SW, Hoskin PJ, Kirkham A, Padhani AR, Persad R, Puech P, Punwani S, Sohaib AS, Tombal B, Villers A, van der Meulen J, Emberton M (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 59(4):477–494

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, Margolis D, Schnall MD, Shtern F, Tempany CM, Thoeny HC, Verma S (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69(1):16–40

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Akin O, Sala E, Moskowitz CS, Kuroiwa K, Ishill NM, Pucar D, Scardino PT, Hricak H (2006) Transition zone prostate cancers: features, detection, localization, and staging at endorectal MR imaging. Radiology 239(3):784–792

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Li H, Sugimura K, Kaji Y, Kitamura Y, Fujii M, Hara I, Tachibana M (2006) Conventional MRI capabilities in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in the transition zone. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186(3):729–742

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Viswanath SE, Bloch NB, Chappelow JC, Toth R, Rofsky NM, Genega EM, Lenkinski RE, Madabhushi A (2012) Central gland and peripheral zone prostate tumors have significantly different quantitative imaging signatures on 3 Tesla endorectal, in vivo T2-weighted MR imagery. J Magn Reson Imaging 36(1):213–224

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Joseph H, Yacoub M, Oto Aytekin, Miller Frank H (2014) MR imaging of the prostate. Radiol Clin N Am 52:811–837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Toivonen J, Merisaari H, Pesola M, Taimen P, Bostrom PJ, Pahikkala T, Aronen HJ, Jambor I (2015) Mathematical models for diffusion-weighted imaging of prostate cancer using b values up to 2000 s/mm2: correlation with Gleason score and repeatability of region of interest analysis. Magn Reson Med Off J Soc Magn Reson Med Soc Magn Reson Med 74(4):1116–1124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Boesen L, Chabanova E, Logager V, Balslev I, Thomsen HS (2015) Apparent diffusion coefficient ratio correlates significantly with prostate cancer gleason score at final pathology. J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI 42(2):446–453

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mazaheri Y, Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, Fine SW, Zhang J, Inurrigarro G, Moskowitz CS, Ishill NM, Reuter VE, Touijer K, Zakian KL, Koutcher JA (2008) Prostate cancer: identification with combined diffusion-weighted MR imaging and 3D 1H MR spectroscopic imaging—correlation with pathologic findings. Radiology 246(2):480–488

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Peng Y, Jiang Y, Antic T, Giger ML, Eggener SE, Oto A (2014) Validation of quantitative analysis of multiparametric prostate MR images for prostate cancer detection and aggressiveness assessment: a cross-imager study. Radiology 271(2):461–471

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Peng Y, Jiang Y, Yang C, Brown JB, Antic T, Sethi I, Schmid-Tannwald C, Giger ML, Eggener SE, Oto A (2013) Quantitative analysis of multiparametric prostate MR images: differentiation between prostate cancer and normal tissue and correlation with Gleason score—a computer-aided diagnosis development study. Radiology 267(3):787–796

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Durmus T, Baur A, Hamm B (2014) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of prostate cancer. Aktuelle Urologie 45(2):119–126

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ewing JR, Bagher-Ebadian H (2013) Model selection in measures of vascular parameters using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: experimental and clinical applications. NMR Biomed 26(8):1028–1041

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL, Evelhoch JL, Henderson E, Knopp MV, Larsson HB, Lee TY, Mayr NA, Parker GJ, Port RE, Taylor J, Weisskoff RM (1999) Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging 10(3):223–232

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Pinto PA, Chung PH, Rastinehad AR, Baccala AA Jr, Kruecker J, Benjamin CJ, Xu S, Yan P, Kadoury S, Chua C, Locklin JK, Turkbey B, Shih JH, Gates SP, Buckner C, Bratslavsky G, Linehan WM, Glossop ND, Choyke PL, Wood BJ (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 186(4):1281–1285

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rastinehad AR, Chokshi S, Benjamin CJ, Turkbey B, Chung PH, Krueker J, Xu S, Locklin JK, Gates SP, Linehan WM, Choyke PL, Wood BJ, Pinto PA (2011) Prostate cancer detection rates using a mr/trus fusion system: in patients with a previous negative prostate biopsy. J Endourol 25:A190

    Google Scholar 

  40. Vourganti S, Rastinehad A, Yerram NK, Nix J, Volkin D, Hoang A, Turkbey B, Gupta GN, Kruecker J, Linehan WM, Choyke PL, Wood BJ, Pinto PA (2012) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound fusion biopsy detect prostate cancer in patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies. J Urol 188(6):2152–2157

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sonn GA, Natarajan S, Margolis D, Macairan M, Lieu P, Huang J, Dorey FJ, Marks LS (2012) Value of targeted biopsy in detecting prostate cancer using an office-based MR-US fusion device. J Urol 187(4):E829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ukimura O, Leslie S, Lewandowski PM, Abreu ALD, Huang EYH, Shoji S, Goh A, Gross M, Agus D, Aron M, Desai M, Gill I (2012) Impact of “image-guided targeted biopsy” on the follow-up surveillance prostate biopsy to determine progression among men on active surveillance. J Urol 187(4):E144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Banek S, Kramer U, Alloussi S, Kaufmann S, Schwentner C, Stenzl A, Schilling D (2012) Fusion of non-contrast-3 tesla-MRI and TRUS-imaging: implementation of a new biopsy technique to detect prostate cancer. J Urol 187(4):E591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Leslie S, Goh A, Lewandowski PM, Huang EYH, Abreu ALD, Berger AK, Ahmadi H, Jayaratna I, Shoji S, Gill IS, Ukimura O (2012) Contemporary image-guided targeted prostate biopsy better characterizes cancer volume, gleason grade and its 3d location compared to systematic biopsy. J Urol 187(4):E827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Natarajan S, Marks LS, Margolis DJ, Huang J, Macairan ML, Lieu P, Fenster A (2011) Clinical application of a 3D ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy system. Urol Oncol 29(3):334–342

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Hadaschik BA, Kuru TH, Tulea C, Rieker P, Popeneciu IV, Simpfendorfer T, Huber J, Zogal P, Teber D, Pahernik S, Roethke M, Zamecnik P, Roth W, Sakas G, Schlemmer HP, Hohenfellner M (2011) A novel stereotactic prostate biopsy system integrating pre-interventional magnetic resonance imaging and live ultrasound fusion. J Urol 186(6):2214–2220

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Smeenge M, de la Rosette JJ, Wijkstra H (2012) Current status of transrectal ultrasound techniques in prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 22(4):297–302

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Anastasiadis AG, Lichy MP, Nagele U, Kuczyk MA, Merseburger AS, Hennenlotter J, Corvin S, Sievert KD, Claussen CD, Stenzl A, Schlemmer HP (2006) MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate increases diagnostic performance in men with elevated or increasing PSA levels after previous negative TRUS biopsies. Eur Urol 50(4):738–748 (discussion 748–739)

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Yakar D, Hambrock T, Hoeks C, Barentsz JO, Futterer JJ (2008) Magnetic resonance-guided biopsy of the prostate: feasibility, technique, and clinical applications. Top Magn Reson Imaging TMRI 19(6):291–295

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ukimura O, Hirahara N, Fujihara A, Yamada T, Iwata T, Kamoi K, Okihara K, Ito H, Nishimura T, Miki T (2010) Technique for a hybrid system of real-time transrectal ultrasound with preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in the guidance of targeted prostate biopsy. Int J Urol Off J Jpn Urol Assoc 17(10):890–893

    Google Scholar 

  51. Ukimura O (2010) Evolution of precise and multimodal MRI and TRUS in detection and management of early prostate cancer. Expert Rev Med Devices 7(4):541–554

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George AK, Rothwax J, Shakir N, Okoro C, Raskolnikov D, Parnes HL, Linehan WM, Merino MJ, Simon RM, Choyke PL, Wood BJ, Pinto PA (2015) Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 313(4):390–397

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Marks L, Young S, Natarajan S (2013) MRI-ultrasound fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsy. Curr Opin Urol 23(1):43–50

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sonn GA, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, MacAiran M, Lieu P, Huang J, Dorey FJ, Marks LS (2013) Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion device. J Urol 189(1):86–91

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Roehl KA, Antenor JA, Catalona WJ (2002) Serial biopsy results in prostate cancer screening study. J Urol 167(6):

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Sonn GA, Chang E, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, Macairan M, Lieu P, Huang J, Dorey FJ, Reiter RE, Marks LS (2014) Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Eur Urol 65(4):809–815

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Hu JC, Chang E, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, Macairan M, Lieu P, Huang J, Sonn G, Dorey FJ, Marks LS (2014) Targeted prostate biopsy in select men for active surveillance: do the Epstein criteria still apply? J Urol 192(2):385–390

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Le JD, Huang J, Marks LS (2014) Targeted prostate biopsy: value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in detection of localized cancer. Asian J Androl 16(4):522–529

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Sonn GA, Filson CP, Chang E, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, Macairan M, Lieu P, Huang J, Dorey FJ, Reiter RE, Marks LS (2014) Initial experience with electronic tracking of specific tumor sites in men undergoing active surveillance of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 32(7):952–957

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V, Eggener S, Emberton M, Futterer JJ, Gill IS, Grubb Iii RL, Hadaschik B, Klotz L, Margolis DJ, Marks LS, Melamed J, Oto A, Palmer SL, Pinto P, Puech P, Punwani S, Rosenkrantz AB, Schoots IG, Simon R, Taneja SS, Turkbey B, Ukimura O, van der Meulen J, Villers A, Watanabe Y (2013) Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. Eur Urol 64(4):544–552

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Afshar-Oromieh A, Malcher A, Eder M, Eisenhut M, Linhart HG, Hadaschik BA, Holland-Letz T, Giesel FL, Kratochwil C, Haufe S, Haberkorn U, Zechmann CM (2013) PET imaging with a [68Ga]gallium-labelled PSMA ligand for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: biodistribution in humans and first evaluation of tumour lesions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40(4):486–495

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Afshar-Oromieh A, Haberkorn U, Schlemmer HP, Fenchel M, Eder M, Eisenhut M, Hadaschik BA, Kopp-Schneider A, Rothke M (2014) 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 41(5):887–897

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Eiber M, Maurer T, Souvatzoglou M, Beer AJ, Ruffani A, Haller B, Graner FP, Kubler H, Haberhorn U, Eisenhut M, Wester HJ, Gschwend JE, Schwaiger M (2015) Evaluation of hybrid (6)(8)Ga-PSMA ligand PET/CT in 248 patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med 56(5):668–674

    Google Scholar 

  64. Eiber M, Weirich G, Holzapfel K, Souvatzoglou M, Haller B, Rauscher I, Beer AJ, Wester HJ, Gschwend J, Schwaiger M, Maurer T (2016) Simultaneous (68)Ga-PSMA HBED-CC PET/MRI improves the localization of primary prostate cancer. Eur Urol. pii: S0302-2838(16)00011-7. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.12.053

  65. Hara T, Kosaka N, Kishi H (1998) PET imaging of prostate cancer using carbon-11-choline. J Nucl Med 39(6):990–995

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Carolan P, Hunt C, Murphy R, Johnson G, Peller P, Nathan M (2012) Prostate cancer findings on FDG and C-11 choline PET/CT. Am J Roentgenol 198:5 (abstract)

    Google Scholar 

  67. Schilling D, Schlemmer HP, Wagner PH, Bottcher P, Merseburger AS, Aschoff P, Bares R, Pfannenberg C, Ganswindt U, Corvin S, Stenzl A (2008) Histological verification of 11C-choline-positron emission/computed tomography-positive lymph nodes in patients with biochemical failure after treatment for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 102(4):446–451

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Piert M, Park H, Khan A, Siddiqui J, Hussain H, Chenevert T, Wood D, Johnson T, Shah RB, Meyer C (2009) Detection of aggressive primary prostate cancer with 11C-choline PET/CT using multimodality fusion techniques. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med 50(10):1585–1593

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. DeGrado TR, Baldwin SW, Wang S, Orr MD, Liao RP, Friedman HS, Reiman R, Price DT, Coleman RE (2001) Synthesis and evaluation of (18)F-labeled choline analogs as oncologic PET tracers. J Nucl Med 42(12):1805–1814

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Soyka JD, Muster MA, Schmid DT, Seifert B, Schick U, Miralbell R, Jorcano S, Zaugg K, Seifert HH, Veit-Haibach P, Strobel K, Schaefer NG, Husarik DB, Hany TF (2012) Clinical impact of F-18-choline PET/CT in patients with recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 39(6):936–943

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Kwee SA, DeGrado T (2008) Prostate biopsy guided by 18F-fluorocholine PET in men with persistently elevated PSA levels. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 35(8):1567–1569

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Oyama N, Miller TR, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, Fischer KC, Michalski JM, Kibel AS, Andriole GL, Picus J, Welch MJ (2003) 11C-acetate PET imaging of prostate cancer: detection of recurrent disease at PSA relapse. J Nucl Med 44(4):549–555

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Mena E, Turkbey B, Mani H, Adler S, Valera VA, Bernardo M, Shah V, Pohida T, McKinney Y, Kwarteng G, Daar D, Lindenberg ML, Eclarinal P, Wade R, Linehan WM, Merino MJ, Pinto PA, Choyke PL, Kurdziel KA (2012) 11C-Acetate PET/CT in localized prostate cancer: a study with MRI and histopathologic correlation. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med 53(4):538–545

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Schiepers C, Hoh CK, Nuyts J, Seltzer M, Wu C, Huang SC, Dahlbom M (2008) 1-11C-acetate kinetics of prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 49(2):206–215

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Morris MJ, Scher HI (2007) (11)C-acetate PET imaging in prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34(2):181–184

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Lepin EJ, Leyton JV, Zhou Y, Olafsen T, Salazar FB, McCabe KE, Hahm S, Marks JD, Reiter RE, Wu AM (2010) An affinity matured minibody for PET imaging of prostate stem cell antigen (PSCA)-expressing tumors. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37(8):1529–1538

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Pillarsetty N, Punzalan B, Larson SM (2009) 2-18F-Fluoropropionic acid as a PET imaging agent for prostate cancer. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med 50(10):1709–1714

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Beattie BJ, Smith-Jones PM, Jhanwar YS, Schoder H, Schmidtlein CR, Morris MJ, Zanzonico P, Squire O, Meirelles GS, Finn R, Namavari M, Cai S, Scher HI, Larson SM, Humm JL (2010) Pharmacokinetic assessment of the uptake of 16beta-18F-fluoro-5alpha-dihydrotestosterone (FDHT) in prostate tumors as measured by PET. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med 51(2):183–192

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Evans MJ, Smith-Jones PM, Wongvipat J, Navarro V, Kim S, Bander NH, Larson SM, Sawyers CL (2011) Noninvasive measurement of androgen receptor signaling with a positron-emitting radiopharmaceutical that targets prostate-specific membrane antigen. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(23):9578–9582

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Milowsky MI, Nanus DM, Kostakoglu L, Vallabhajosula S, Goldsmith SJ, Bander NH (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

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Bander NH, Trabulsi EJ, Kostakoglu L, Yao D, Vallabhajosula S, Smith-Jones P, Joyce MA, Milowsky M, Nanus DM, Goldsmith SJ (2003) Targeting metastatic prostate cancer with radiolabeled monoclonal antibody J591 to the extracellular domain of prostate specific membrane antigen. J Urol 170(5):1717–1721

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Shiiba M, Ishihara K, Kimura G, Kuwako T, Yoshihara N, Sato H, Kondo Y, Tsuchiya S, Kumita S (2012) Evaluation of primary prostate cancer using C-11-methionine-PET/CT and F-18-FDG-PET/CT. Ann Nucl Med 26(2):138–145

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Nunez R, Macapinlac HA, Yeung HWD, Akhurst T, Cai SD, Osman I, Gonen M, Riedel E, Scher HI, Larson SM (2002) Combined F-18-FDG and C-11-methionine PET scans in patients with newly progressive metastatic prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 43(1):46–55

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Lengyel Z, Toth G, Balkay L, Salah MA, Esik O, Sipos T, Tron L, Toth C (2004) Detection of organ confined prostate cancer with 11C-methionine PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31:S339

    Google Scholar 

  85. Mease RC, Dusich CL, Foss CA, Ravert HT, Dannals RF, Seidel J, Prideaux A, Fox JJ, Sgouros G, Kozikowski AP, Pomper MG (2008) -1,3-Dicarboxypropyl]carbamoyl]-4-F]fluorobenzyl--cysteine, [F]DCFBC: a new imaging probe for prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 14(10):3036–3043

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Cho SY, Gage KL, Mease RC, Senthamizhchelvan S, Holt DP, Jeffrey-Kwanisai A, Endres CJ, Dannals RF, Sgouros G, Lodge M, Eisenberger MA, Rodriguez R, Carducci MA, Rojas C, Slusher BS, Kozikowski AP, Pomper MG (2012) Biodistribution, tumor detection, and radiation dosimetry of 18F-DCFBC, a low-molecular-weight inhibitor of prostate-specific membrane antigen, in patients with metastatic prostate cancer. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med 53(12):1883–1891

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Rowe SP, Gage KL, Faraj SF, Macura KJ, Cornish TC, Gonzalez-Roibon N, Guner G, Munari E, Partin AW, Pavlovich CP, Han M, Carter HB, Bivalacqua TJ, Blackford A, Holt D, Dannals RF, Netto GJ, Lodge MA, Mease RC, Pomper MG, Cho SY (2015) (1)(8)F-DCFBC PET/CT for PSMA-based detection and characterization of primary prostate cancer. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med 56(7):1003–1010

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Fei B, Wang H, Wu C, Chiu SM (2010) Choline PET for monitoring early tumor response to photodynamic therapy. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med 51(1):130–138

    Google Scholar 

  89. Schuster DM, Votaw JR, Nieh PT, Yu WP, Nye JA, Master V, Bowman FD, Issa MM, Goodman MM (2007) Initial experience with the radiotracer anti-1-amino-3-F-18-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid with PET/CT in prostate carcinoma. J Nucl Med 48(1):56–63

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Schuster DM, Taleghani PA, Nieh PT, Master VA, Amzat R, Savir-Baruch B, Halkar RK, Fox T, Osunkoya AO, Nye JA, Yu W, Fei BW, Wang Z, Chen Z, Goodman MM (2013) Characterization of primary prostate carcinoma by anti-1-amino-2-[18F]-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid (anti-3-[18F] FACBC) uptake. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 3(1):85–96

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Oka S, Hattori R, Kurosaki F, Toyama M, Williams LA, Yu W, Votaw JR, Yoshida Y, Goodman MM, Ito O (2007) A preliminary study of anti-1-amino-3-18F-fluorocyclobutyl-1-carboxylic acid for the detection of prostate cancer. JNuclMed 48(1):46–55

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Schuster DM, Nieh PT, Jani AB, Amzat R, Bowman FD, Halkar RK, Master VA, Nye JA, Odewole OA, Osunkoya AO, Savir-Baruch B, Alaei-Taleghani P, Goodman MM (2014) Anti-3-[(18)F]FACBC positron emission tomography-computerized tomography and (111)In-capromab pendetide single photon emission computerized tomography-computerized tomography for recurrent prostate carcinoma: results of a prospective clinical trial. J Urol 191(5):1446–1453

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Schuster DM, Taleghani PA, Nieh PT, Master VA, Amzat R, Savir-Baruch B, Halkar RK, Fox T, Osunkoya AO, Moreno CS, Nye JA, Yu W, Fei B, Wang Z, Chen Z, Goodman MM (2013) Characterization of primary prostate carcinoma by anti-1-amino-2-[(18)F] -fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid (anti-3-[(18)F] FACBC) uptake. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 3(1):85–96

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Turkbey B, Mena E, Shih J, Pinto PA, Merino MJ, Lindenberg ML, Bernardo M, McKinney YL, Adler S, Owenius R, Choyke PL, Kurdziel KA (2014) Localized prostate cancer detection with 18F FACBC PET/CT: comparison with MR imaging and histopathologic analysis. Radiology 270(3):849–856

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Fei B, Master V, Nieh P, Akbari H, Yang X, Fenster A, Schuster D (2011) A PET/CT directed, 3D ultrasound-guided biopsy system for prostate cancer. In: Workshop on Prostate Cancer Imaging, The Annual Meeting of the Society of Medical Imaging Computing and Image Assisted Interventions (MICCAI), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2011. Workshop on Prostate Cancer Imaging at the Medical Imaging Computing and Image Assisted Interventions Meeting (MICCAI 2011)—Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp 100–108

  96. Fei B, Nieh PT, Schuster DM, Master VA (2013) PET-directed, 3D Ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Diagn Imaging Eur 29(1):12–15

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Fei B, Schuster DM, Master V, Akbari H, Fenster A, Nieh P (2012) A molecular image-directed, 3D ultrasound-guided biopsy system for the prostate. Proc SPIE. Int Soc Opt Eng pii: 831613

  98. Akbari H, Fei BW (2012) 3D ultrasound image segmentation using wavelet support vector machines. Med Phys 39(6):2972–2984

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Qiu W, Yuan J, Ukwatta E, Sun Y, Rajchl M, Fenster A (2014) Dual optimization based prostate zonal segmentation in 3D MR images. Med Image Anal 18(4):660–673

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Mahapatra D, Buhmann JM (2014) Prostate MRI segmentation using learned semantic knowledge and graph cuts. Biomed Eng IEEE Trans 61(3):756–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Litjens G, Debats O, Barentsz J, Karssemeijer N, Huisman H (2014) Computer-aided detection of prostate cancer in MRI. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 33(5):1083–1092

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Liao S, Gao Y, Oto A, Shen D (2013) Representation learning: a unified deep learning framework for automatic prostate MR segmentation. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv MICCAI Int Conf Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 16(Pt 2):254–261

    Google Scholar 

  103. Toth R, Madabhushi A (2012) Multifeature landmark-free active appearance models: application to prostate MRI segmentation. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 31(8):1638–1650

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Litjens G, Debats O, van de Ven W, Karssemeijer N, Huisman H (2012) A pattern recognition approach to zonal segmentation of the prostate on MRI. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv MICCAI Int Conf Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 15(Pt 2):413–420

    Google Scholar 

  105. Qiu W, Yuan J, Ukwatta E, Sun Y, Rajchl M, Fenster A (2014) Prostate segmentation: an efficient convex optimization approach with axial symmetry using 3-D TRUS and MR images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 33(4):947–960

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Yang M, Li X, Turkbey B, Choyke PL, Yan P (2013) Prostate segmentation in MR images using discriminant boundary features. Biomed Eng IEEE Trans 60(2):479–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Zwiggelaar R, Zhu Y, Williams S (2003) Semi-automatic segmentation of the prostate. Pattern recognition and image analysis. Springer, New York, pp 1108–1116

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  108. Flores-Tapia D, Thomas G, Venugopa N, McCurdy B, Pistorius S (2008) Semi automatic MRI prostate segmentation based on wavelet multiscale products. In: Engineering in medicine and biology society EMBS. 30th Annual International Conference of the IEEE, 2008. IEEE, pp 3020–3023

  109. Samiee M, Thomas G, Fazel-Rezai R Semi-automatic prostate segmentation of MR images based on flow orientation. In: Signal processing and information technology, 2006 IEEE International Symposium on, 2006. IEEE, pp 203–207

  110. Cootes TF, Hill A, Taylor CJ, Haslam J (1993) The use of active shape models for locating structures in medical images. Information processing in medical imaging. Springer, New York, pp 33–47

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  111. Zhu Y, Williams S, Zwiggelaar R (2007) A hybrid ASM approach for sparse volumetric data segmentation. Pattern recognition and image analysis 17(2):252–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Kass M, Witkin A, Terzopoulos D (1988) Snakes: active contour models. Int J Comput Vis 1(4):321–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Chan TF, Vese LA (2001) Active contours without edges. IEEE Trans Image Process 10(2):266–277

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Mumford D, Shah J (1989) Optimal approximations by piecewise smooth functions and associated variational problems. Commun Pure Appl Math 42(5):577–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Ghose S, Oliver A, Marti R, Llado X, Vilanova JC, Freixenet J, Mitra J, Sidibe D, Meriaudeau F (2012) A survey of prostate segmentation methodologies in ultrasound, magnetic resonance and computed tomography images. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 108(1):262–287

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Klein S, van der Heide UA, Lips IM, van Vulpen M, Staring M, Pluim JPW (2008) Automatic segmentation of the prostate in 3D MR images by atlas matching using localized mutual information. Med Phys 35(4):1407–1417

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Egger J (2013) PCG-cut: graph driven segmentation of the prostate central gland. PLoS One 8(10):6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. Tian Z, Liu L, Zhang Z, Fei B (2016) Superpixel-based Segmentation for 3D prostate MR images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 35(3):791–801

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Tian Z, Liu L, Fei B (2015) A supervoxel-based segmentation for prostate MR images. Proc SPIE 9731:941318

    Google Scholar 

  120. Fei BW, Schuster DM, Master VA, Nieh PT (2012) Incorporating PET/CT images into 3D ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate. In: The Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physics in Medicine (AAPM), Charlotte, NC, 2012, vol. 6. Med Phys, p 3888

  121. Fei BW, Master V, Nieh P, Akbari H, Yang XF, Fenster A, Schuster D (2011) A PET/CT directed, 3D ultrasound-guided biopsy system for prostate cancer. In: Madabhushi A, Dowling J, Huisman H, Barratt D (eds) Prostate cancer imaging: image analysis and image-guided interventions, vol. 6963. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Piscataway, NJ, pp 100–108

  122. Oliveira FP, Tavares JMR (2014) Medical image registration: a review. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 17(2):73–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Neto JA, Parente DB (2013) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 21:409–426

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Mease RC, Foss CA, Pomper MG (2013) PET imaging in prostate cancer: focus on prostate-specificmembrane antigen. Curr Top Med Chem 13:951–962

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  125. The diagnostic value of PET/CT imaging with the (2015) (68)Ga-labelled PSMA ligand HBED-CC in the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42(2):197–209

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  126. Herlemann A, Wenter V, Kretschmer A, Thierfelder KM, Bartenstein P, Faber C, Gildehaus FJ, Stief CG, Gratzke C, Fendler WP (2016) (68)Ga-PSMA positron emission tomography/computed tomography provides accurate staging of lymph node regions prior to lymph node dissection in patients with prostate cancer. Eur Urol. pii: S0302-2838(16)00009-9

  127. Maurer T, Gschwend JE, Rauscher I et al (2016) Diagnostic efficacy of 68gallium-PSMA positron emission tomography compared to conventional imaging for lymph node staging of 130 consecutive patients with intermediate to high risk prostate cancer. J Urol 195:1436–1443

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Pomper MG, Musachio JL, Zhang J et al (2002) 11C-MCG: synthesis, uptake selectivity, and primate PET of a probe for glutamate carboxypeptidase II (NAALADase). Mol Imaging 1:96–101

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Cho SY, Gage KL, Mease RC et al (2012) Biodistribution, tumor detection, and radiation dosimetry of [r]18[/r]F-DCFBC, a low-molecular-weight inhibitor of prostate-specific membrane antigen, in patients with metastatic prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 53:1883–1891

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Muller et al (2015) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion–assisted biopsy for the diagnosis of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 33(10):425.e1–6

  131. Sankineni S et al (2015) Posterior subcapsular prostate cancer-identification with mpMRI and MRI TRUS fusion-guided biopsy. Abdom Imaging 40(7):2557–2565

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Walton Diaz A et al (2013) Can magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy improve cancer detection in enlarged prostates? J Urol 190(6):2020–2025

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Le JD et al (2014) Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy for prediction of final prostate pathology. J Urol 192(5):1367–1373

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Filson CP et al (2016) Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: the role of systematic and targeted biopsies. Cancer 122(6):884–892

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by NIH Grants CA156775 and CA176684.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, 1841 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA, 30329, USA

    Baowei Fei, Yun Zhang & David M. Schuster

  2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Emory University and Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 30329, USA

    Baowei Fei

  3. Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30329, USA

    Baowei Fei & Adeboye O. Osunkoya

  4. Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA

    Peter T. Nieh, Viraj A. Master & Adeboye O. Osunkoya

  5. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA

    Adeboye O. Osunkoya

  6. Department of Pathology, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Decatur, GA, 30033, USA

    Adeboye O. Osunkoya

Authors
  1. Baowei Fei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter T. Nieh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Viraj A. Master
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yun Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Adeboye O. Osunkoya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David M. Schuster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Baowei Fei.

Ethics declarations

Ethical statement

The study was approved by the IRB of Emory University.

Conflict of interest

The authors have participated in sponsored research involving 18F-fluciclovine among other radiotracers. Emory University is eligible to receive royalties for 18F-fluciclovine.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fei, B., Nieh, P.T., Master, V.A. et al. Molecular imaging and fusion targeted biopsy of the prostate. Clin Transl Imaging 5, 29–43 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-016-0214-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-016-0214-7

Keywords

  • Prostate cancer
  • Targeted biopsy
  • Molecular imaging
  • Positron emission tomography (PET)
  • Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
  • Image segmentation
  • Image registration