Elsevier

PET Clinics

Volume 10, Issue 2, April 2015, Pages 255-263
PET Clinics

Prognostic Utility of PET in Prostate Cancer

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpet.2014.12.007Get rights and content

Section snippets

Key points

  • Predictive tools are keys in clinical decision making and individualized management of patients with prostate cancer.

  • Current nonimaging-based predictive tools may be limited in individual cases and need frequent updating.

  • Novel platform of predictive tools that combine molecular, imaging, and clinical information are needed.

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer and the sixth leading cause of cancer death in men worldwide, despite wide regional variation in incidence and mortality.

Outcome measures

Because prostate cancer is a remarkably heterogeneous disease, a personalized approach to patient care is most desired.42 However, such approach will require identification of a combination of surrogate markers of disease that can portray the disease activity accurately before, during, and after biologically and clinically tailored treatment. To achieve this worthy goal, relevant endpoints will be needed to design and conduct trials for drug development that can have the most beneficial impact

Current predictive tools

Predictive tools help with the decision-making process for the clinician and the patients given the complex biology and clinical course of prostate cancer and the ever-changing landscape of treatment options at every phase of the natural history of the disease. The predictive tools include nomograms, propensity risk tables, artificial neural networks, and other methods.45, 46, 47, 48, 49 Deciphering the exact utility of these tools may seem daunting for both the treating physician and the

Imaging as a prognostic tool

Imaging plays an important current and expanding role in the imaging evaluation of every phase of the natural history of prostate cancer.60 Given the limitations of the current prediction tools, newer biomarkers, including circulating tumor cells, patient-reported outcomes, and imaging are of much interest for monitoring of clinical outcomes in specific groups of patients with prostate cancer.61 Overall, relatively few studies have investigated the impact of imaging on patient outcome. This is

Summary

Predictive tools are keys in clinical decision making and individualized management of patients with prostate cancer. This report outlined the utility and limitations of the current non–imaging-based prognostic tools and then presented the published reports on the potential use of incorporating quantitative imaging data, particularly PET, in this important clinical arena.

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (88)

  • M.W. Kattan et al.

    Prediction of progression: nomograms of clinical utility

    Clin Prostate Cancer

    (2002)
  • P.L. Ross et al.

    A catalog of prostate cancer nomograms

    J Urol

    (2001)
  • A.W. Partin et al.

    Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium

    Urology

    (2001)
  • D.V. Makarov et al.

    Updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason score (Partin tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005

    Urology

    (2007)
  • H. Augustin et al.

    Head to head comparison of three generations of Partin tables to predict final pathological stage in clinically localized prostate cancer

    Eur J Cancer

    (2010)
  • O. Akin et al.

    Imaging of prostate cancer

    Radiol Clin North Am

    (2007)
  • M.J. Morris et al.

    Monitoring the clinical outcomes in advanced prostate cancer: what imaging modalities and other markers are reliable?

    Semin Oncol

    (2013)
  • D. Ulmert et al.

    A novel automated platform for quantifying the extent of skeletal tumor involvement in prostate cancer patients using the bone scan index

    Eur Urol

    (2012)
  • N. Oyama et al.

    Prognostic value of 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography imaging for patients with prostate cancer

    Mol Imaging Biol

    (2002)
  • M.H. Umbehr et al.

    The role of 11C-choline and 18F-fluorocholine positron emission tomography (PET) and PET/CT in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Eur Urol

    (2013)
  • Surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program. National Cancer Institute. Available at:...
  • E.J. Small

    Prostate cancer, incidence, management and outcomes

    Drugs Aging

    (1998)
  • E.K. Outwater et al.

    Imaging of prostate cancer

    Cancer Control

    (2013)
  • S. Tabatabaei et al.

    Prostate cancer imaging: what surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists want to know

    AJR Am J Roentgenol

    (2011)
  • F.E. Lecouvert et al.

    Novel imaging techniques reshape the landscape in high-risk prostate cancers

    Curr Opin Urol

    (2013)
  • J.J. Fox et al.

    Molecular imaging of prostate cancer

    Curr Opin Urol

    (2012)
  • D.W. Good et al.

    Elasticity as a biomarker for prostate cancer: a systematic review

    BJU Int

    (2014)
  • M. Smeenge et al.

    Current status of transrectal ultrasound techniques in prostate cancer

    Curr Opin Urol

    (2012)
  • C.R. Kundavaram et al.

    Value of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in prostate cancer

    Curr Opin Urol

    (2012)
  • L. Klotz

    Prostate cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment

    Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes

    (2013)
  • F.V. Coakley et al.

    Magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopic imaging of prostate cancer

    J Urol

    (2003)
  • J.A. Neto et al.

    Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate

    Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am

    (2013)
  • C.M. Hoeks et al.

    Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging

    Radiology

    (2011)
  • G. Murphy et al.

    The expanding role of MRI in prostate cancer

    AJR Am J Roentgenol

    (2013)
  • O. Ukimura et al.

    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

    (2010)
  • O. Ukimura et al.

    Intraprostatic targeting

    Curr Opin Urol

    (2012)
  • L. Marks et al.

    MRI-ultrasound fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsy

    Curr Opin Urol

    (2013)
  • F. Cornud et al.

    TRUS-MRI image registration: a paradigm shift in the diagnosis of significant prostate cancer

    Abdom Imaging

    (2013)
  • N.L. Robertson et al.

    MRI-targeted prostate biopsy: a review of technique and results

    Nat Rev Urol

    (2013)
  • J.J. Futterer et al.

    MRI-guided and robotic-assisted prostate biopsy

    Curr Opin Urol

    (2012)
  • H.I. Scher et al.

    Biology of progressive, castration-resistant prostate cancer: directed therapies targeting the androgen-receptor signaling axis

    J Clin Oncol

    (2005)
  • D.P. Petrylak

    Current state of castration-resistant prostate cancer

    Am J Manag Care

    (2013)
  • D.P. Petrylak

    Challenges in treating advanced disease

    Am J Manag Care

    (2013)
  • J. El-Amm et al.

    The changing landscape in the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

    Ther Adv Med Oncol

    (2013)
  • Cited by (5)

    • Increased Prostate Cancer Glucose Metabolism Detected by <sup>18</sup>F-fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Localised Gleason 8–10 Prostate Cancers Identifies Very High–risk Patients for Early Recurrence and Resistance to Castration

      2019, European Urology Focus
      Citation Excerpt :

      To better define prognosis in the high-risk group, a new set of clinical criteria has been developed to discriminate very high–risk from high-risk patients and is now integrated within National Comprehensive Cancer Network PCa guidelines [12,13]. In recent years, molecular imaging with positron emission tomography coupled with computed tomography (PET/CT) has been developed to stage cancers [14]. One of the most commonly used PET tracers is 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG), which is preferentially taken up by malignant cells due to increased glucose metabolism known as the “Warburg effect” [15].

    • Is There Use for FDG-PET in Prostate Cancer?

      2016, Seminars in Nuclear Medicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      The ability to assess outcome in patients with cancer using noninvasive imaging is powerful and of major use in clinical decision-making and individual patient management. Relevant outcome measures in prostate cancer may include, but are not limited to, time to biochemical recurrence (time to PSA progression), time to first metastasis, time to symptomatic progression, time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy, time to radiographic progression, time to castrate resistance state, progression-free survival, metastasis-free survival, disease-specific survival, and overall survival.33 One study of 42 men with primary prostate cancer showed that patients with higher primary tumor FDG uptake had significantly poorer prognosis compared with those patients with tumors that showed lower FDG uptake.34

    The author has nothing to disclose.

    This work was supported by National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, grants R01-CA111613, R21-CA142426, P30-CA014089.

    View full text