Elsevier

Clinical Oncology

Volume 17, Issue 7, October 2005, Pages 553-559
Clinical Oncology

Original article
Imaging for Prostate Cancer

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2005.07.003Get rights and content

Abstract

The increased incidence and awareness of prostate cancer, together with developments in treatment, has generated a significant need for appropriate imaging to detect and stage the tumour initially, guide radiotherapy delivery and monitor disease on follow-up. Transrectal ultrasound is usually the first imaging investigation, and its role is primarily to guide prostate needle biopsy. It also has an established role in imaging-guided treatments, such as brachytherapy. Magnetic resonance imaging has developed considerably in recent years, and is now the principal staging investigation before treatment. Innovations in functional and biological imaging of the prostate will, in the future, contribute valuable information to support parallel developments in radiotherapy techniques for prostate cancer. The ultimate goal is a co-ordinated diagnostic and therapeutic approach to individualise and optimise the treatment plan for patients with prostate cancer.

Introduction

The increased detection of prostate cancer has generated new challenges for diagnostic imaging and radiotherapy. Improvements in radiotherapy technique, and the desire to optimise the treatment for individual patients, have demanded more precise delineation of the location and extent of prostate cancer. Appropriate patient selection needs high quality and clinically relevant imaging that is best managed through multidisciplinary working, in which diagnostic radiologists can understand the clinical issues raised and radiotherapists can appreciate the indications and limitations of the imaging available to them.

Prostate imaging began with the introduction of transrectal ultrasound in the early 1970s [1], and has developed into a multimodality approach that has benefited considerably from technological developments in the past few decades. Our increased awareness of prostate cancer as a major cause of male cancer mortality has challenged the power of imaging to detect aggressive prostate cancers while still confined to the prostate gland. Traditional morphologically based prostate imaging is now being complemented by functional and molecular imaging techniques that yield information about the biology of prostate cancer. The ultimate goal is to identify the most appropriate treatment strategy for each patient while minimising treatment-associated morbidity.

The introduction of serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has improved the earlier diagnosis and facilitated treatment monitoring of prostate cancer; however, the clinical dilemmas of how to institute active treatment for this disease remain. Clinical factors are paramount to the choice of treatment used, but imaging can contribute to this clinical decision by helping to identify more aggressive and potentially life-threatening cancers that might benefit from early intervention. PSA-based prostate cancer detection has led to a gradual downward stage migration at initial diagnosis, and nowadays most newly diagnosed cases have intermediate-grade, organ-confined prostate cancer [2]. The effect on diagnostic imaging has been significant, with increased emphasis on early diagnosis in response to elevation in the serum PSA. Clinicians can use nomograms, such as Partin's Tables [3], to counsel individual patients and make clinical decisions about management; however, currently, we have no reliable imaging method to distinguish prostate cancers that are biologically aggressive from those that may have a more indolent clinical course in life. This need to stratify prostate cancers by their life-threatening potential and tailor individual treatments accordingly is driving the development of molecular-based prostate cancer imaging, in particular. Our future understanding and delineation of the genetic factors underlying the pathogenesis of prostate cancer will become an integral part of the management of the patient and facilitate the integration of radiotherapy into the treatment plan.

Imaging-guided delivery of radiation therapy to the prostate is now a sophisticated process that uses three-dimensional reconstruction and targeting of tumour target volumes. Optimal integration of imaging data into the planning and delivery of radiation requires anatomical knowledge of the tumour target as well as technical expertise in volume-based treatment-planning techniques. The use of additional information from functional imaging and, ultimately, molecular imaging will require careful collaboration between radiologists and oncologists, closely supported by medical physics.

The purpose of this paper is to review the current status of diagnostic imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer, and the role of imaging in the treatment of prostate cancer.

Section snippets

Transrectal Ultrasound

Transrectal ultrasound is widely used as the initial investigation for prostate cancer, and has benefited from major technical advances since its introduction over 3 decades ago. In the early days of prostate ultrasound, before the advent of serum PSA testing, many cancers presented at a relatively advanced stage, and were typically visible as hypoechoic areas in the peripheral gland. Nowadays, with the earlier PSA-based detection of a larger proportion of T1c tumours, many cancers are not

Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate provides the most accurate information to date about the anatomy and location of tumour within the prostate gland. A field strength of 1.5 Tesla is recommended for adequate imaging, and the best results are obtained using a combination of endorectal and pelvic phased-array coils [18]. MRS is carried out in combination with conventional MRI, and requires the use of an endorectal coil. The exact imaging parameters used will depend on the

Radiotherapy Planning

As radiotherapy techniques improve and become more conformal, the need for more precise localisation of the tumour target becomes increasingly important. It is strange to reflect that, despite the array of diagnostic imaging techniques we now have, the technique that is currently in widespread clinical use for planning radiation treatment to the prostate is computed tomography (CT) scanning. CT is the one imaging technique that does not show tumour within the gland, cannot define margins with

Conclusion

Prostate imaging now incorporates sophisticated and highly accurate anatomical imaging, together with physiological and biological imaging that yield an expanding volume of data about the location and potential lethality of the tumour. The challenge that faces all involved in the management of prostate cancer is to use the information available from modern diagnostic imaging in to the radiation planning and treatment delivery to the prostate target. Biological targeting of the most active

References (48)

  • H. Watanabe et al.

    Diagnostic application of ultrasonotomography to the prostate

    Invest Uro1

    (1971)
  • W.J. Catalona et al.

    Detection of organ-confined prostate cancer is increased through prostate-specific antigen-based screening

    JAMA

    (1993)
  • F. Lee et al.

    Hypoechoic lesions of the prostate: clinical relevance of tumour size, digital rectal examination, and prostate-specific antigen

    Radiology

    (1989)
  • H. Hricak et al.

    Carcinoma of the prostate gland: MR imaging with pelvic phased-array coils versus integrated endorectal—pelvic phased-array coils

    Radiology

    (1994)
  • G.J. Jager et al.

    Local staging of prostate cancer with endorectal MR imaging: correlation with histopathology

    AJR Am J Roentgenol

    (1996)
  • M.R. Engelbrecht et al.

    Prostate cancer staging using imaging

    BJU Int

    (2000)
  • E.J. Halpern et al.

    Prostate cancer: contrast-enhanced US for detection

    Radiology

    (2001)
  • E.J. Halpern et al.

    Prostate: high frequency doppler US imaging for cancer detection

    Radiology

    (2002)
  • I.F. Lissbrant et al.

    Vascular density is a predictor of cancer-specific survival in prostatic carcinoma

    Prostate

    (1997)
  • M. Borre et al.

    Microvessel density predicts survival in prostate cancer patients subjected to watchful waiting

    Br J Cancer

    (1998)
  • T. Hall

    AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: topics in US

    Radiographics

    (2003)
  • J. Joseph et al.

    Prostate-specific antigen relapse-free survival in patients with localized prostate cancer treated by brachytherapy

    BJU Int

    (2004)
  • H. Ragde et al.

    Ten year disease free survival after transperineal sonography guided iodine 125 brachytherapy with or without 45Gy external beam irradiation in the treatment of patients with clinically localized low to high grade Gleason prostate carcinoma

    Cancer

    (1998)
  • C. Nutting et al.

    Potential improvements in the therapeutic ratio of prostate cancer irradiation: dose escalation of pathologically identified tumour nodules using intensity modulated radiotherapy

    Br J Radiol

    (2002)
  • Cited by (19)

    • Prostate biopsies and controversies

      2013, Ultrasound Clinics
      Citation Excerpt :

      The technique may have limitations, however, such as the angle dependency of Doppler flow, the intraprostatic noise mimicking increased blood flow, and inadequacy for detecting low flow velocities. Targeted biopsy solely depending, however, on high-frequency color or power Doppler imaging is not recommended, due to the inherent theoretic risk of missing a significant number of cancers.39 Power Doppler ultrasound has the advantage of being less angle dependent than CDUS and of detecting slow flow and even minor alterations in blood flow in very small tumoral vessels.1

    • Ultrasonography of the prostate: Update on current techniques

      2010, Ultrasound Clinics
      Citation Excerpt :

      Accordingly, CDUS was helpful in the differentiation of low-risk, hypovascular tumors from high-risk, hypervascular tumors because the latter group was associated with hypervascularity representing a higher rate of Gleason tumor grades implying higher risk of extraprostatic spread (see Fig. 5).18 Targeted biopsy solely depending on high-frequency color or power Doppler imaging is not recommended because of the theoretical risk of missing a significant number of cancers.13 Apart from the quantitative assessment of blood flow, calculating microvessel density representing the distribution of microvasculature can be helpful for assessing the blood flow to the prostate by CDUS.

    • Role of Imaging in Prostate Cancer

      2009, PET Clinics
      Citation Excerpt :

      Other factors include amplification of coactivators, activation of oncogenes, and autocrine growth factor stimulation.31 Imaging evaluation of prostate cancer remains particularly challenging, which is a reflection of the clinical heterogeneity of the disease.32–35 Initial imaging differential diagnosis may be made when suspected (eg, high serum PSA level, abnormal digital rectal examination) with ultrasound and MR imaging using endorectal probes, contrast agents, and image-guided biopsies.

    • Positron Emission Tomography in Oncology: A Review

      2007, Clinical Oncology
      Citation Excerpt :

      FDG PET scanning has been used for the diagnosis of relapse in patients with a mismatch of serum marker levels and absence of visible disease on CT imaging, although larger clinical trials are needed to confirm this. Imaging of the prostate with FDG PET has been disappointing [75]. The limitations of using FDG PET to image the pelvis are as a result of urinary excretion of FDG into ureters and bladder.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text