Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Deutsches Ärzteblatt International logoLink to Deutsches Ärzteblatt International
. 2021 Oct 22;118(42):713–719. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.m2021.0309

Imaging of Prostate Cancer

Heinz-Peter Schlemmer 1,*, Bernd Joachim Krause 3, Viktoria Schütz 2, David Bonekamp 1, Sarah Marie Schwarzenböck 3, Markus Hohenfellner 2
PMCID: PMC8767150  PMID: 34427180

Abstract

Background

Prostate cancer is the most common type of solid tumor in men and the second most common cause of cancer-related death in males in Germany. The conventional strategy for its primary detection, i.e., systematic ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in men who have elevated PSA levels and/or positive findings on digital rectal examination, fails to reveal all cases. The same is true of the use of conventional computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and skeletal scintigraphy for the early detection of recurrences and distant metastases.

Methods

This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective search, including the German clinical practice guideline on prostate cancer and systematic review articles.

Results

Prospective multicenter trials have shown that the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer is markedly improved with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and MR/TRUS fusion biopsy (TRUS = transrectal ultrasonography), compared to conventional systematic biopsy. A recent Cochrane review showed that the rate of overdiagnosis of low-risk prostate cancer was reduced with mpMRI and MR/TRUS fusion biopsy compared with conventional systematic biopsy (95/1000 vs. 139/1000), and that clinically significant prostate cancer was more reliably detected (sensitivity 72% vs. 63%), albeit with slightly lower specificity (96% vs. 100%). Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) hybrid imaging improves the detection of lymphogenic and bony metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. PSMA hybrid imaging is most commonly used to detect biochemical recurrences. A meta-analysis showed that the detection rate depends on the PSA concentration: 74.1% overall, 33.7% with PSA <0.2 ng/mL, and 91.7% with PSA ≥= 2.0 ng/mL.

Conclusion

The appropriate use of mpMRI and MR/TRUS fusion biopsy improves the initial detection of prostate cancer as well as the assessment of the prognosis. PSMA hybrid imaging is useful for the staging of high-risk patients and for the detection of recurrences. These methods are now recommended in the German clinical practice guideline on prostate cancer as well as in guidelines from other countries.

cme plus

This article has been certified by the North Rhine Academy for Continuing Medical Education. Participation in the CME certification program is possible only over the internet: cme.aerzteblatt.de. The deadline for submission is 21 October 2022.

Prostate cancer is the most common type of solid tumor in men and the second most common cause of cancer-related death in men in Germany (1). Mortality varies by a factor of 10 depending on the pathological risk category (2), but the initial detection has been subject to limitations thus far. In recent years, early detection and primary diagnosis, as well as the detection of distant metastases and recurrences have been notably improved by means of modern imaging techniques.

Developments in diagnosing prostate cancer

For decades, the standard for diagnosing prostate cancer was ultrasound-guided transrectal (TRUS) prostate biopsy with up to 12 cores, which was undertaken because of a raised PSA (prostate specific antigen) value and/or abnormal findings on digital-rectal examination. On the basis of a Gleason score deduced from these 12 biopsy punches taken from the prostate and the PSA value, the tumor was classified as low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk prostate cancer (3) and the indication was decided for further treatment (active surveillance versus active therapy). This diagnostic approach is, however, unsatisfactory in view of the known biological heterogeneity and multifocality of prostate cancer. The low specificity of the PSA serum measurement (4) and the limitations of the systematic biopsy can lead to overdiagnosis with an overestimate of the clinical prognosis or over treatment, respectively. On the other hand, a pathological upgrading of the initial Gleason score has been observed in 28.6% of the final prostatectomy specimens (5). More than 40% of mostly small carcinomas in apical or ventral position in the prostate can remain undetected (6). Transrectal ultrasound examination combined with contrast enhanced sonography, ultrasound elastography, or computer guided sonography (histoscanning) have not found their way into routine clinical practice and are therefore not recommended for the primary diagnosis of prostate cancer (7).

Multiparametric MRI in the detection of localized prostate cancer

Multiparametric MRI scanning (mpMRI) is currently the most precise imaging method for the detection of suspected prostate cancer, for T staging (8), and for monitoring purposes in active surveillance (9). The method is based on high-resolution images with three different contrasts, or MRI sequences (hence “multiparametric”) and can be routinely undertaken with modern 1.5T and 3.0T MR scanners (10):

  • T2 weighted imaging (T2w) for displaying the prostate anatomy

  • Diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) as a biomarker of regionally altered cell density, and

  • Dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) MRI as a biomarker of regionally altered vascular density (microvascularization).

In carcinomas with a high cell density, the Brownian molecular motion of the interstitial tissue fluid is restricted compared with normal glandular tissue, which can be visualized and additionally quantified by using DWI (apparent diffusion coefficient, ADC). As a result of neovascularization, cancers are characterized by increased vascular density and permeability, which manifests on DCE as early arterial and increased contrast medium accumulation. Of note, this means microstructural tissue characteristics can be visualized whose dimension is below the actual anatomical resolution limit of MRI ([µm] versus [mm]). In the glandular [gland-rich] peripheral zone, cancers are contrasted on mpMRI in a characteristic manner because of their changed cell density and neovascularization (figure 1). In the transitional zone, which has undergone nodular changes subsequent to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), it is, however, more difficult to detect cancers, as BHP nodules consist in variable ways of heterogenous glandular and stromal parts, and the stromal components also have restricted fluid diffusion and an increased vascular density.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Multiparametric magnetic resonance tomography (mpMRI) of the prostate of a 77 year old patient with PSA 4.4 ng/mL, 43 ml prostate volume, PSA density 0.1 ng/mL2. No prior biopsy. Top row from left to right: axial T2 weighted sequence and diffusion weighted imaging DWI (b value 1500 s/mm2). Bottom row: dynamic contrast medium enhanced MRI (DCE) in the early arterial phase and apparent diffusion coefficient card. A 9 mm focus configured in an oval shape in the peripheral zone (PZ) posteromedially on the right in the center with notable diffusion impairment and early contrast medium accumulation (long arrow). Corresponds to a suspect PI-RADS 4 finding. Furthermore visible in the PZ are bilateral flat signal attentuations with only slight diffusion impairment and weak contrast medium accumulation, consistent with unspecific (post)inflammatory/regressive changes. A partially diffusion impaired nodule of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BHP) in the transitional zone (TZ) in the middle on the right indicates stromal components. Targeted MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy of the PI-RADS 4 lesion found in up to 60% of punch cylinders a clinically significant carcinoma of the prostate (Gleason 7a, 80 % Gleason pattern 3, 20 % Gleason pattern 4). The systematic biopsies also found a Gleason 6 prostate cancer in up to 15% of a punch cylinder specimen in the sextant located posteriorly to the right.

Several prospective randomized multicenter trials and meta-analyses have shown that mpMRI is superior to systematic prostate biopsy. A recently published meta-analysis of 10 studies (2489 patients) showed for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer by means of mpMRI a pooled sensitivity of 94% [95% confidence interval: 0.83; 0.98] and a specificity of 54% [0.42; 0.65] (11). Between 0 and 30.8% of clinically significant prostate cancers remained undetected. The negative predictive value of mpMRI is comparatively high, at 90%. What is less satisfactory is the low specificity with a positive predictive value of only 27–43% (12– 14). Also, after a negative mpMRI result, a residual uncertainty of 7–12% remains for the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score group ≥= 2). Improved primary detection can be achieved, for example, by combining the mpMRI result with clinical risk models, such as the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) (15). The results of important studies of widening the use of mpMRI to include younger age groups—for example, on the basis of PSA and multiple kallikrein panels, as in the ProScreen study (16)—will define in greater detail the role of mpMRI. Biparametric MRI (Tw2 and DWI) is available as a more efficient alternative and does not use contrast medium. A recently published study of population based screening found that including biparametric MRI reduced the need for biopsy by 48%. If a biopsy was needed, the rate of benign findings was reduced by 73% and the rate of clinically insignificant prostate cancers by 62%. The detection rate for clinically significant prostate cancer was not reduced—it was even slightly raised, by 3% (17).

MR/TRUS fusion biopsy

Targeted tissue sampling from suspected cancerous findings of mpMRI improves the precision and reliability of the initial pathological diagnosis, Three methods have been developed for MRI guided prostate biopsy: (1) cognitive fusion biopsy—that is, conventional TRUS biopsy compared with the available MR images, (2) direct MRI guided biopsy in the MR tomograph, and (3) MR/TRUS fusion biopsy—that is, a conventional TRUS guided biopsy, during which the ultrasound images are fused with previously obtained MR images including the marked lesions. For reasons of practicality and precision, MR/TRUS fusion biopsy has become the preferred approach (figure 2).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Real-time fusion of the transrectal ultrasounds of the prostate with multiparametric magnetic resonance tomography (mpMRI) imaging data in the context of MR-TRUS fusion biopsy, in a 51-year-old patient with a suspect lesion on mpMRI. On the morphological, T2 weighted MRI sequences, the contours of the prostate (purple) and the lesion detected on mpMRI (here in the peripheral zone, posterolateral, center left, green) are outlined and then transferred to the images from real-time sonography, or fused with these (left-sagittal aspect of the ultrasound). The fused images enable a precise biopsy of the lesions previously seen on mpMRI (marked in green) and the real-time documentation of the successful positioning of the biopsy needle in the target trajectory (left-yellow).

Studies from 2010 onwards have confirmed the clear superiority of the combined systematic plus MRI guided fusion biopsy of the prostate in the detection of clinically significant—and thus in need of treatment—prostate cancers (18, 19). The use of fusion biopsy has raised the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer from about 50% (systematic 12-tims/fold biopsy) to more than 90% (20). The prospective randomized trials PROMIS (6) and PRECISION (18) as well as the Cochrane review (12) confirmed that undertaking mpMRI before the biopsy improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer compared with systematic biopsy. In a recent Cochrane review, the combination of MRI and MRI guided biopsy was found to be superior to the standard 12-times biopsy. Overdiagnosis of low-risk prostate cancer was reduced (139 versus 95 in every 1000 men), and clinically significant prostate cancer was detected more reliably (sensitivity 72% versus 63%; specificity 96% versus 100%) (12). By reliably excluding tumors requiring active treatment, defining the indication and undertaking active surveillance were improved by including MRI in combination with regular clinical controls including PSA measurement and re-biopsies (9). In centers of excellent, MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy has by now become the standard approach.

Improving and ensuring diagnostic quality

A reliably high investigative quality of mpMRI is required for scientific studies as well as for patient care. The European Society of Urogenital Imaging (ESUR) and the American College of Radiology (ACR) developed guidelines and quality standards for conducting the investigation and diagnosis, which are continually being revised and updated. (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, PI-RADS, currently: Version V2.1) (21– 23). For the peripheral and transitional zones, different radiological assessment criteria are applied. In the peripheral zone, the primary decision aid is assessed to be changes in cell density (DWI) and in unclear cases changes in the vascular density (DCE). In the transitional zone, the assessment follows primarily morphological criteria (T2w), and in unclear situations, cell density (DWI) is jointly used to reach a decision. The probability of the presence of a clinically significant prostate cancer is classified by using a 5-point Likert scale; findings that are probably benign are described as PI-RADS 1 and 2 and findings that are probably malignant as PI-RADS 4 and 5. PI-RADS3 describes unclear findings. In such cases it is useful to consult the PSA serum measurement (PSA density) relative to the prostate volume for an individual risk assessment (24).

However, the interpretation of the mpMRI can be subject to substantial variation, in spite of PI-RADS (25). Reproducibility therefore needs to be improved, especially outside centers of excellence. In Germany, the AG Uroradiologie und Urogenitaldiagnostik—Deutsche Röntgengesellschaft (DRG, the German Radiological Society’s uroradiology and genitourinary diagnostics working group) and the Berufsverband der Deutschen Radiologen e.V. (DBR, the Professional Association of German Radiologists) are offering a “special certification mpMRI prostate” or a “Certificate mpMRI prostatography.” Corresponding recommendations for how to conduct mpMRI have been published just recently (23). After a structured examination procedure, the respective radiology hospitals/practices receive certification that they conduct mpMRI in accordance with the currently valid international standards (26, 27).

The role of artificial intelligence

Prostate mpMRI using artificial intelligence (AI) is currently a highly active research area, from which many innovative impulses are to be expected in the near future (28, 29). In the meantime, deep learning systems have become capable of analyzing mpMRI investigations in a fully automated manner and to assign a tumor probability to every image voxel (figure 3). The equivalence of such deep learning analyses with radiological evaluation according to PI-RADS has already been shown retrospectively, even though, in contrast to radiologists, no satisfactory agreement has been reached with regard to the definition of the lesion segmentation (3). With further basic research in increasingly more realistic quasi-clinical scenarios it is to be expected that AI algorithms as diagnostic decision support tools will become more widely used. In the context of a project funded by the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (Clinic 5.1), the foundations for the development of AI systems to support doctors’ decisions in the clinical diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer are currently being created (31).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Illustration of the deep learning process: radiologically (not shown), a small 5 mm subcapsular focus was found in the peripheral zone (PZ), located posterolaterally to the right in the center with focal obvious diffusion impairment and small focal early contrast medium accumulation, consistent with a PI-RADS 4 finding. Furthermore, unspecific (post-)inflammatory/regressive changes were seen in the PZ. In the transitional zone left, center, an encapsulated BPH nodule appears (benign prostatic hyperplasia) with diffusion impairment. The image includes a T2-weighted axial MR image with an overlay of deep learning based tumor probability according to the color scale at the bottom. The automatic deep learning process detects the suspect PI-RADS 4 finding and quantifies a predicted tumor probability, in this case of up to a maximum of 43%. The targeted biopsy found a Gleason Grade Group 3 significant prostate carcinoma in 55% of the punch biopsies.

Multiparametric MRI in the current S3 guideline

In May 2021 the new S3 guideline for prostate cancer Version 6.0 was published (7). According to the guideline, mpMRI basically needs to be consistent with current quality standards (recommendation 5.13). It should be undertaken in the primary diagnostic evaluation before the first biopsy (5.16a). If mpMRI was not undertaken beforehand, it should be done after a negative systematic biopsy if cancer continues to be suspected (5.17a) and before an indication is made in favor of active surveillance (5.18a). Suspect findings (PI-RADS) should undergo targeted biopsy, in the context of the primary diagnosis (5.14a) as well as in patients considering active surveillance (5.18b). The initial biopsy in the context of primary diagnostic evaluation should include a systematic biopsy in addition to mpMRI guided biopsy (5.14b). In case of a normal mpMRI—that is, without a finding of a suspect focus (PI-RADS 1–2), patients should nevertheless be offered a systematic biopsy in addition to PSA monitoring (5.16b). Patients considering focal therapy should undergo mpMRI, mpMRI fusion biopsy, and systematic biopsy (6.39a). If an MRI biopsy is not possible, a template biopsy can be carried out as an alternative (6.39b). The recommendations are consistent with those of the European Association of Urology (32) and the latest NICE guidelines (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London) (33).

The role of PSMA-PET/CT in the diagnostic assessment of metastatic prostate cancer and recurrence

In case of a biochemical recurrence (PSA rise) after primary treatment, the detection of the precise localization of the recurrence (local, regional, or distant) has a crucial influence on subsequent therapeutic planning. For example, the detection of local lymph node metastases after primary radical prostatectomy (RPE) or initial radiotherapy is decisive factor for planning salvage radiotherapy and the radiation schedule (figure 4) or salvage RPE. In recent years, prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) has become the particular focus as the target structure of detection/diagnosis but also of therapy (theranostics). Molecular PET hybrid imaging (PET/CT and PET/MRI) uses a small molecule as a radiopharmaceutical, which selectively binds to PSMA and thereby enables detection/diagnostic evaluation with high specificity and sensitivity.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Ga-68-PSMA-PET/CT of a patient with prostate cancer (pT2c, pN1 L1 V0 R0, Gleason score 3+4=7). The primary treatment consisted of radical prostatectomy without any further therapies. A year after the surgery the patient’s PSA value started to rise slightly, from 0.08 ng/mL to 0.69 ng/mL. The latter value was followed by Ga-68-PSMA-PET/CT and pathological PSMA concentrations with a high contrast were seen in several para iliac lymph nodes bilaterally, in the sense of lymph node metastases of the prostate cancer. This was decisive for planning further treatment, as only the prostatic fossa is targeted by standard radiotherapy, whereas if lymph nodes are affected the lymph drainage channels in the little pelvis are included in the radiation field.

The introduction of PSMA-PET/CT since 2011 has resulted in fundamental improvements in the detection of early lymphogenic and bone metastases compared with the limited conventional CT, MRI, and bone scintigraphy. PSMA-PET hybrid imaging is currently most commonly used in the setting of a biochemical recurrence after primary therapy of prostate cancer (for review articles 34, 35). A review article including 43 studies and 5832 patients found an overall detection rate of 74.1% [69.2%; 78.5%], which depended on the PSA concentration (from 33.7 % in PSA < 0.2 ng/mL to 91.7 % in PSA ≥= 2.0 ng/mL) (35). Early studies already showed the sensitivity of PSMA-PET/CT in detecting metastatic spread when PSA concentrations were low (36). The reliability of PSMA-PET/CT was confirmed in large case series (37). Visschere et al (34) included 98 studies in a systematic review with a focus on early biochemical recurrence. Detection rates were between 11.3% and 58.3% for PSA concentrations <0.2 ng/mL and between 11.0% and 65.0% for PSA values <0.5 ng/mL.

For the primary detection of spread in patients with high risk prostate cancer, accurate staging is of substantial relevance for deciding on treatment—from local therapy to a multimodal therapeutic approach using a combination of surgery, radiotherapy, and systemic therapy. Prostate cancers with a Gleason score of ≥=8, a PSA value ≥=20 ng/mL (2), or patients with morphological local advanced cancer on MRI are considered high risk. In such patients, a recent randomized multicenter trial showed the superiority of PSMA-PET/CT compared with conventional imaging (abdominal CT and skeletal scintigraphy) (38). The precision of PSMA-PET/CT in the initial detection of metastases was 91–95%—clearly superior to that of conventional imaging (59–74%). Compared with PSMA-PET/CT conventional imaging was found to have lower sensitivity (38% [24–52] vs 85% [74–96]) and specificity (91% [85–97] vs 98% [95–100]). Molecular hybrid imaging has recently undergone important further development, with the development of F-18 based PSMA ligands (39). Using fluorine-18 rather than gallium-68 as a marker makes radiopharmaceutical production easier and activity higher. F-18 based ligands can also be delivered to PET/CT centers without their own radiopharmacy. Further diagnostic, therapeutic, and theragnostic developments are to be expected.

PSMA-PET/CT is currently not available nationwide but can be accessed in different ways regionally through certain insurance schemes and Ambulante Spezialärztliche Versorgung (ASV, outpatient specialist care).

PSMA-PET hybrid imaging in the current S3 guideline

This method has greater precision in detecting metastatic prostate cancer than the combination of computed tomography and bone scintigraphy (5.25a). In primary high risk prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥=8 or T category ≥=T3 or PSA ≥=20 ng/mL) it can be used to detect tumor spread (5.25b). In the context of diagnosing recurrence, it can be used after primary curative therapy to assess the tumor volume, if the finding is of therapeutic consequence (5.29a)—a negative PSMA-PET result should, however, not delay early salvage therapy (5.29b).

In the advanced stages of castration resistant prostate cancer, systemic therapies take priority, whose selection depends on determining the metastatic burden with precision. Molecular PET hybrid imaging is of increasing importance in this setting too. Additionally, after all guideline conform therapeutic options have been exhausted, radiopharmaceuticals marked with lutetium-177 as a ß-emitter open up the possibility of systemic radionuclide based Lu-177-PSMA therapy (40). According to the interdisciplinary S3 guideline, patients with castration resistant progressive disease who are in good general condition can— after the recommended therapeutic options have been exhausted—be offered a therapeutic attempt using lutetium-177 PSMA on the basis of the recommendation of an oncologic multidisciplinary team session (7.51).

Outlook

Modern imaging techniques have substantially improved the detection/diagnostic evaluation of prostate cancer and therefore patient care in recent years. mpMRI and MR/TRUS fusion biopsy improve the initial detection and prognosis classification, and PSMA hybrid imaging improve staging in high risk patients as well as the detection of cancer recurrence. The methods have been implemented in the recent S3 guideline and are increasingly available in private practices. However, the costs are not as a rule reimbursed by the statutory health insurers. Randomized controlled trials investigating the endpoint mortality do not yet exist as survival times are very long especially for patients diagnosed at an early stage and at low or intermediate risk. For this reason, it is not yet possible at this time to evaluate this long term endpoint for these relatively new [“young”] diagnostic approaches. Furthermore, a wide spectrum of therapeutic options is available for prostate cancer, which needs to be borne in mind when drawing conclusions about the impact of the imaging techniques described in this article on patients’ overall survival. Further methodological developments are to be expected from the integration of imaging based, clinical, and molecular biology based parameters in association with AI.

Questions on the article in issue 42/2021:

Imaging of Prostate Cancer

The submission deadline is 21 October 2022. Only one answer is possible per question. Please select the answer that is most appropriate.

Question 1

In which proportion of the final prostatectomy specimens is the Gleason score after traditional systematic biopsy upgraded after the pathology assessment?

  1. About 0.5 %

  2. About 2 %

  3. About 10 %

  4. About 29 %

  5. About 42 %

Question 2

Which method is currently regarded as the most precise imaging technique for detecting suspected cancerous findings in the prostate, for T staging, and for follow-up?

  1. Ultrasound elastography

  2. Multiparametric MRI

  3. Computer guided sonography (histoscanning)

  4. Contrast enhanced sonography

  5. Computed tomography

Question 3

What is being visualized by/during diffusion weighting in the MRI scanner in the area of cancers?

  1. The increased Brownian molecular motion of the interstitial fluid

  2. The reduced vascular density (microvascularization)

  3. The increased vascular density (microvascularization)

  4. The increased Brownian molecular motion of the intercellular fluid

  5. The impaired Brownian molecular motion of the interstitial fluid

Question 4

Which MRI sequences does multiparametric MRI diagnostic evaluation entail?

  1. T1 weighting, T2 weighting, diffusion weighting

  2. T1 weighting, proton density weighting, dynamic contrast enhanced MRI

  3. T2 weighting, proton density weighting, diffusion weighting

  4. T2 weighting, diffusion weighting, dynamic contrast enhanced MRI

  5. Proton density weighting, diffusion weighting, dynamic contrast enhanced MRI

Question 5

What‘s the residual uncertainty for the presence of significant prostate cancer after a negative finding on multiparametric MRI (Gleason Grade Group 2)?

  1. 1–2 %

  2. 2–6 %

  3. 7–12 %

  4. 16–20 %

  5. 21–25 %

Question 6

The probability of a significant psotate cancer is classified by means of a Likert scale. Which results indicate that a malignant finding is highly probable?

  1. PI-RADS 4 and 5

  2. PI-RADS 5 and 6

  3. PI-RADS 7 and 8

  4. PI-RADS 1 and 2

  5. PI-RADS 0 and 1

Question 7

What does the abbreviation PSMA stand for in the context of the diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer?

  1. Precarcinogenic specific membrane antigen

  2. Prostate specific malignant antigen

  3. Precarcinogenic specific metastatic antigen

  4. Prostate specific membrane antigen

  5. Prostate specific membrane antibodies

Question 8

Upwards of which Gleason score is a prostate cancer considered “high risk”?

  1. ≤ 3

  2. ≥ 4

  3. ≥ 6

  4. ≥ 8

  5. ≥ 10

Question 9

Which method is the most precise for detecting metastatic prostate cancer in biochemical recurrence?

  1. Computed tomography

  2. TRUS

  3. mpMRI

  4. TRUS biopse

  5. PSMA-PET hybrid imaging

Question 10

Which radionuclide can be used for radionuclide based PSMA treatment of metastases once all guideline conform therapeutic options have been exhausted?

  1. Lutetium-177

  2. Iodine-131

  3. Yttrium-90

  4. Phosphorus-32

  5. Rhenium-188

Acknowledgments

Translated from the original German by Birte Twisselmann, PhD.

Footnotes

Conflict of interest statement Prof. Schlemmer receives research funding from the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and from the German Aerospace Center. He ran a cooperation with Bayer AG and Guerbet GmbH. He received consultancy fees from the German Radiological Society (BDR). He received lecture honoraria at several specialist conferences and was reimbursed travel expenses from Siemens Healthineers und Bayer Vital GmbH/Bayer Health AG. He sits on the board of trustees of the Roland Ernst Foundation and acted as a consultant to Curagita until 12/2018. He is president of the European Society of Oncology Imaging and has been a member of the guideline group of the guideline program “Prostate cancer” since December 2016, as well as a member of the guideline committee of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. He maintains a scientific collaboration with Siemens. He received study support from German Cancer Aid and Profound Medical.

Prof. Krause received financial funding and financial contributions for lectures from AAA/Novartis. He is a member of the advisory board of ITM solution GmbH and president of the German Society for Nuclear Medicine.

Prof. Bonekamp received lecture honoraria at various specialist conferences and was reimbursed travel expenses and occasionally received honoraria from Bayer Vital GmbH/Bayer Health AG. In the Profound Phase 2 Study, he received from Profound Medical the equipment in the context of MR thermometry-monitored transurethreal prostate ablation study.

PD Schwarzenböck was reimbursed travel expenses from the European Association of Nuclear Medicine.

Prof. Hohenfelder received research grants from the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and the German Aerospace Center in the context of the consortium project Clinic 5.1.

Dr Schütz declares that no conflict of interest exists.

References

  • 1.Robert Koch-Institut e.V. GdeKiD. Krebs in Deutschland 2015/2016. www.krebsdaten.de/Krebs/DE/Content/Publikationen/Krebs_in_Deutschland/kid_2019/krebs_in_deutschland_2019.pdf;jsessionid=0AAB0F47689EFD8C5BB4739E108FC835.2_cid298?__blob=publicationFile (last accessed on 3 September 2021) [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rider JR, Sandin F, Andren O, Wiklund P, Hugosson J, Stattin P. Long-term outcomes among noncuratively treated men according to prostate cancer risk category in a nationwide, population-based study. Eur Urol. 2013;63:88–96. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.08.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.D‘Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280:969–974. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.11.969. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Catalona WJ, Smith DS, Ratliff TL, et al. Measurement of prostate-specific antigen in serum as a screening test for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:1156–1161. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199104253241702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Corcoran NM, Hong MK, Casey RG, et al. Upgrade in gleason score between prostate biopsies and pathology following radical prostatectomy significantly impacts upon the risk of biochemical recurrence. BJU Int. 2011;108(8) doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10119.x. Pt 2 E202-10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ahmed HU, Bosaily AE-S, Brown LC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389:815–822. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Grimm MWS, Böhmer D, Bolenz C, et al. Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF): S3-Leitlinie Prostatakarzinom, Langversion 60, 2021, AWMF Registernummer: 043/022OL. www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/leitlinien/prostatakarzinom/ (last accessed on 3 September 2021) [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Caglic I, Kovac V, Barrett T. Multiparametric MRI—local staging of prostate cancer and beyond. Radiol Oncol. 2019;53:159–170. doi: 10.2478/raon-2019-0021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Klotz L, Pond G, Loblaw A, et al. Randomized study of systematic biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging and targeted and systematic biopsy in men on active surveillance (ASIST): 2-year postbiopsy Follow-up. Eur Urol. 2020;77:311–317. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.10.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Schlemmer H-P. Multiparametrische MR-Bildgebung beim Prostatakarzinom. Radiologie up2date. 2017;17:43–60. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Becerra MF, Alameddine M, Zucker I, et al. Performance of multiparametric MRI of the prostate in biopsy naive men: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. Urology. 2020;146:189–195. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.06.102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Drost FH, Osses D, Nieboer D, et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging, with or without magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer: a cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2020;77:78–94. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.06.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Radtke JP, Kuru TH, Bonekamp D, et al. Further reduction of disqualification rates by additional MRI-targeted biopsy with transperineal saturation biopsy compared with standard 12-core systematic biopsies for the selection of prostate cancer patients for active surveillance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016;19:283–291. doi: 10.1038/pcan.2016.16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Sathianathen NJ, Omer A, Harriss E, et al. Negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in the prostate imaging reporting and data system era: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2020;78:402–414. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.03.048. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Radtke JP, Wiesenfarth M, Kesch C, et al. Combined clinical parameters and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for advanced risk modeling of prostate cancer-patient-tailored risk stratification can reduce unnecessary biopsies. Eur Urol. 2017;72:888–896. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Auvinen A, Rannikko A, Taari K, et al. A randomized trial of early detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (ProScreen): study design and rationale. Eur J Epidemiol. 2017;32:521–527. doi: 10.1007/s10654-017-0292-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Eklund M, Jäderling F, Discacciati A, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy in prostate cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:908–920. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2100852. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1767–1777. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Radtke JP, Kuru TH, Boxler S, et al. Comparative analysis of transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy with magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion guidance. J Urol. 2015;193:87–94. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.07.098. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Radtke JP, Schwab C, Wolf MB, et al. Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy for index tumor detection: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimen. Eur Urol. 2016;70:846–853. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.12.052. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.American College of Radiology (ACR), European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR), AdMeTEch Foundation. PI-RADS®, Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System. 2019. Version 2.1. www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/RADS/PI-RADS/PIRADS-V2-1.pdf (last accessed on September 3, 2021) [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Beyer T, Schlemmer H-P, Weber M-A, Thierfelder KM. PI-RADS 21 - Image interpretation: the most important updates and their clinical implications. Rofo. 2021;193:787–796. doi: 10.1055/a-1324-4010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Görtz M, Radtke JP, Hatiboglu G, et al. The value of prostate-specific antigen density for prostate imaging-reporting and data system 3 lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a strategy to avoid unnecessary prostate biopsies. Eur Urol Focus. 2021;7:325–331. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2019.11.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Westphalen AC, McCulloch CE, Anaokar JM, et al. Variability of the positive predictive value of PI-RADS for prostate MRI across 26 centers: experience of the society of abdominal radiology prostate cancer disease-focused panel. Radiology. 2020;296:76–84. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020190646. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Franiel T, Asbach P, Beyersdorff D, et al. mpMRI of the prostate (MR-Prostatography): updated recommendations of the DRG and BDR on patient preparation and scanning protocol. Rofo. 2021;193:763–777. doi: 10.1055/a-1406-8477. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Deutsche Röntgen-Gesellschaft, Gesellschaft für Medizinische Radiologie e.V., AG Uroradiologie und Urogenitaldiagnostik. „Zertifizierung mpMRT der Prostata“. www.ag-uro.drg.de/de-DE/4285/zertifizierung/ (last accessed on 3 September 2021) [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Berufsverband der Deutschen Radiologen e.V. „Update zum Testatverfahren mpMR Prostatografie“. www.radiologenverband.de/#inhalte/2019-04-01/8/mpmr-prostatografieqrr-testat (last accessed on 3 September 2021) [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Bonekamp D, Kohl S, Wiesenfarth M, et al. Radiomic machine learning for characterization of prostate lesions with MRI: comparison to ADC values. Radiology. 2018;289:128–137. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018173064. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Netzer N, Weißer C, Schelb P, et al. Fully automatic deep learning in bi-institutional prostate magnetic resonance imaging: effects of cohort size and heterogeneity. Invest Radiol. 2021 doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000791. DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000791. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Schelb P, Tavakoli AA, Tubtawee T, et al. Comparison of prostate MRI lesion segmentation agreement between multiple radiologists and a fully automatic deep learning system. Rofo. 2021;193:559–573. doi: 10.1055/a-1290-8070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie - Referat Soziale Medien, Öffentlichkeitsarbeit. Digitale Technologien. Aktuelle Strategische Einzelprojekte. CLINIC 5.1 - Comprehensive Lifesciences Neural Information Computing, URL. www.digitale-technologien.de/DT/Navigation/DE/ProgrammeProjekte/AktuelleStrategischeEinzelprojekte/clinic5_1/clinic5_1.htm (last accessed on 3 September 2021) [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71:618–629. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management NICE guideline [NG131] www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng131. Published 09 May 2019.27.06.2021. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.De Visschere PJL, Standaert C, Fütterer JJ, et al. A systematic review on the role of imaging in early recurrent prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019;2:47–76. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.09.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Crocerossa F, Marchioni M, Novara G, et al. Detection rate of prostate specific membrane antigen tracers for positron emission tomography/computerized tomography in prostate cancer biochemical recurrence: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Urol. 2021;205:356–369. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Afshar-Oromieh A, Malcher A, Eder M, et al. 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. 2013;40:486–495. doi: 10.1007/s00259-012-2298-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Afshar-Oromieh A, Holland-Letz T, Giesel FL, et al. Diagnostic performance of (68)Ga-PSMA-11 (HBED-CC) PET/CT in patients with recurrent prostate cancer: evaluation in 1007 patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:1258–1268. doi: 10.1007/s00259-017-3711-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Hofman MS, Lawrentschuk N, Francis RJ, et al. Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy (proPSMA): a prospective, randomised, multicentre study. Lancet. 2020;395:1208–1216. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30314-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Giesel FL, Hadaschik B, Cardinale J, et al. F-18 labelled PSMA-1007: biodistribution, radiation dosimetry and histopathological validation of tumor lesions in prostate cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:678–688. doi: 10.1007/s00259-016-3573-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Yadav MP, Ballal S, Sahoo RK, Dwivedi SN, Bal C. Radioligand therapy with (177)Lu-PSMA for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019;213:275–285. doi: 10.2214/AJR.18.20845. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Deutsches Ärzteblatt International are provided here courtesy of Deutscher Arzte-Verlag GmbH

RESOURCES