Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPadhani, ARen_US
dc.contributor.authorLecouvet, FEen_US
dc.contributor.authorTunariu, Nen_US
dc.contributor.authorKoh, D-Men_US
dc.contributor.authorDe Keyzer, Fen_US
dc.contributor.authorCollins, DJen_US
dc.contributor.authorSala, Een_US
dc.contributor.authorFanti, Sen_US
dc.contributor.authorVargas, HAen_US
dc.contributor.authorPetralia, Gen_US
dc.contributor.authorPetralia, Gen_US
dc.contributor.authorSchlemmer, HPen_US
dc.contributor.authorTombal, Ben_US
dc.contributor.authorde Bono, Jen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-08-15T13:15:21Z
dc.date.issued2017-04en_US
dc.identifier.citationEuropean urology focus, 2017, 3 (2-3), pp. 223 - 239en_US
dc.identifier.issn2405-4569en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.icr.ac.uk/handle/internal/779
dc.identifier.eissn2405-4569en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.euf.2016.06.018en_US
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.en_US
dc.formatPrint-Electronicen_US
dc.format.extent223 - 239en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_US
dc.subjectHumansen_US
dc.subjectProstatic Neoplasmsen_US
dc.subjectNeoplasm Metastasisen_US
dc.subjectCholineen_US
dc.subjectRadiopharmaceuticalsen_US
dc.subjectPositron-Emission Tomographyen_US
dc.subjectTomography, X-Ray Computeden_US
dc.subjectMagnetic Resonance Imagingen_US
dc.subjectRadionuclide Imagingen_US
dc.subjectSensitivity and Specificityen_US
dc.subjectMaleen_US
dc.subjectWhole Body Imagingen_US
dc.subjectPositron Emission Tomography Computed Tomographyen_US
dc.titleRationale for Modernising Imaging in Advanced Prostate Cancer.en_US
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.dateAccepted2016-06-29en_US
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1016/j.euf.2016.06.018en_US
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2017-04en_US
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_US
dc.relation.isPartOfEuropean urology focusen_US
pubs.issue2-3en_US
pubs.notesNot knownen_US
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-statusPublisheden_US
pubs.volume3en_US
pubs.embargo.termsNot knownen_US
icr.researchteamProstate Cancer Targeted Therapy Groupen_US
dc.contributor.icrauthorKoh, Dow-Muen_US
dc.contributor.icrauthorDe Bono, Johannen_US
dc.contributor.icrauthorTunariu, Ninaen_US
dc.contributor.icrauthorMarsden,en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

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