Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPadhani, AR
dc.contributor.authorLecouvet, FE
dc.contributor.authorTunariu, N
dc.contributor.authorKoh, D-M
dc.contributor.authorDe Keyzer, F
dc.contributor.authorCollins, DJ
dc.contributor.authorSala, E
dc.contributor.authorFanti, S
dc.contributor.authorVargas, HA
dc.contributor.authorPetralia, G
dc.contributor.authorSchlemmer, HP
dc.contributor.authorTombal, B
dc.contributor.authorde Bono, J
dc.date.accessioned2017-08-15T13:15:21Z
dc.date.issued2017-04-01
dc.identifier.citationEuropean urology focus, 2017, 3 (2-3), pp. 223 - 239
dc.identifier.issn2405-4569
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.icr.ac.uk/handle/internal/779
dc.identifier.eissn2405-4569
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.euf.2016.06.018
dc.description.abstractCONTEXT: To effectively manage patients with advanced prostate cancer (APC), it is essential to have accurate, reproducible, and validated methods for detecting and quantifying the burden of bone and soft tissue metastases and for assessing their response to therapy. Current standard of care imaging with bone and computed tomography (CT) scans have significant limitations for the assessment of bone metastases in particular. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to undertake a critical comparative review of imaging methods used for diagnosis and disease monitoring of metastatic APC from the perspective of their availability and ability to assess disease presence, extent, and response of bone and soft tissue disease. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: An expert panel of radiologists, nuclear medicine physicians, and medical physicists with the greatest experience of imaging in advanced prostate cancer prepared a review of the practicalities, performance, merits, and limitations of currently available imaging methods. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Meta-analyses showed that positron emission tomography (PET)/CT with different radiotracers and whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) are more accurate for bone lesion detection than CT and bone scans (BSs). At a patient level, the pooled sensitivities for bone disease by using choline (CH)-PET/CT, WB-MRI, and BS were 91% (95% confidence interval [CI], 83-96%), 97% (95% CI, 91-99%), and 79% (95% CI, 73-83%), respectively. The pooled specificities for bone metastases detection using CH-PET/CT, WB-MRI, and BS were 99% (95% CI, 93-100%), 95% (95% CI, 90-97%), and 82% (95% CI, 78-85%), respectively. The ability of PET/CT and WB-MRI to assess therapeutic benefits is promising but has not been comprehensively evaluated. There is variability in the cost, availability, and quality of PET/CT and WB-MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Standardisation of acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of WB-MRI and PET/CT scans is required to assess the performance of these techniques in clinical trials of treatment approaches in APC. PATIENT SUMMARY: PET/CT and whole-body MRI scans have the potential to improve detection and to assess response to treatment of all states of advanced prostate cancer. Consensus recommendations on quality standards, interpretation, and reporting are needed but will require validation in clinical trials of established and new treatment approaches.
dc.formatPrint-Electronic
dc.format.extent223 - 239
dc.languageeng
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherELSEVIER
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectProstatic Neoplasms
dc.subjectNeoplasm Metastasis
dc.subjectCholine
dc.subjectRadiopharmaceuticals
dc.subjectPositron-Emission Tomography
dc.subjectTomography, X-Ray Computed
dc.subjectMagnetic Resonance Imaging
dc.subjectRadionuclide Imaging
dc.subjectSensitivity and Specificity
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectWhole Body Imaging
dc.subjectPositron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
dc.titleRationale for Modernising Imaging in Advanced Prostate Cancer.
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.dateAccepted2016-06-29
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1016/j.euf.2016.06.018
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2017-04
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
dc.relation.isPartOfEuropean urology focus
pubs.issue2-3
pubs.notesNot known
pubs.organisational-group/ICR
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Clinical Studies
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Clinical Studies/Prostate Cancer Targeted Therapy Group
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/Royal Marsden Clinical Units
pubs.organisational-group/ICR
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Clinical Studies
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/ICR Divisions/Clinical Studies/Prostate Cancer Targeted Therapy Group
pubs.organisational-group/ICR/Primary Group/Royal Marsden Clinical Units
pubs.publication-statusPublished
pubs.volume3
pubs.embargo.termsNot known
icr.researchteamProstate Cancer Targeted Therapy Group
dc.contributor.icrauthorCollins, David
dc.contributor.icrauthorDe Bono, Johann


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0