Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-30T05:10:45.867Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Computed tomography imaging in patients with prostate cancer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2009

By
Jingbo Zhang
Edited by
Hedvig Hricak  and
Peter Scardino
Hedvig Hricak
Affiliation:
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Peter Scardino
Affiliation:
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Prostate cancer has attracted a great deal of resources and effort in the scientific community not only because it is the most common malignancy and the third leading cause of cancer-related mortality in American men [1], but also because of its complex, often baffling nature. It demonstrates a wide clinical spectrum, from indolent disease that the patient will die with, rather than from, to highly aggressive disease that threatens the patient's life. One of the most important questions in managing prostate cancer, therefore, is how to stratify patients by their disease characteristics in order to design appropriate, individualized treatment plans. The use of imaging, which is an integral part of prostate cancer management, should also be guided by the patient's risk category, as determined by the patient's age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, Gleason score, and number of positive biopsy cores [1].

In recent years computed tomography (CT) has undergone substantial technical improvements. With the introduction of high-speed multidetector helical scanners, it is now possible to acquire a CT study with high spatial resolution in a very short time. However, compared to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), CT has poor soft-tissue resolution in the pelvis and therefore is not the modality of choice for evaluating primary prostate cancer.

It has been shown that in patients with low-risk prostate cancer the likelihood of positive findings on abdominal/pelvic CT is extremely low [2, 3]. Therefore, it has been recommended that CT be reserved for the staging of prostate cancer in high-risk patients.

Type
Chapter
Information
Prostate Cancer , pp. 120 - 139
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Hricak, H., Choyke, P. L., Eberhardt, S. C., et al., Imaging prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary perspective. Radiology, 243 (2007), 28–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huncharek, M., Muscat, J., Serum prostate-specific antigen as a predictor of radiographic staging studies in newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Cancer Invest, 13 (1995), 31–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abuzallouf, S., Dayes, I., Lukka, H., Baseline staging of newly diagnosed prostate cancer: a summary of the literature. J Urol, 171 (2004), 2122–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amis, Jr E. S.., Bigongiari, L. R., Bluth, E. I., et al., Pretreatment staging of clinically localized prostate cancer. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria. Radiology 215:Suppl (2000), 703–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Carroll, P., Coley, C., McLeod, D., et al., Prostate-specific antigen best practice policy – part II: prostate cancer staging and post-treatment follow-up. Urology, 57 (2001), 225–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saigal, C. S., Pashos, C. L., Henning, J. M., et al., Variations in use of imaging in a national sample of men with early-stage prostate cancer. Urology, 59 (2002), 400–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kindrick, A. V., Grossfeld, G. D., Stier, D. M., et al., Use of imaging tests for staging newly diagnosed prostate cancer: trends from the CaPSURE database. J Urol, 160 (1998), 2102–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yu, K. K., Hricak, H., Imaging prostate cancer. Radiol Clin North Am, 38 (2000), 59–85, viii.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Akin, O., Hricak, H., Imaging of prostate cancer. Radiol Clin North Am, 45 (2007), 207–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engeler, C. E., Wasserman, N. F., Zhang, G., Preoperative assessment of prostatic carcinoma by computerized tomography. Weaknesses and new perspectives. Urology, 40 (1992), 346–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Platt, J. F., Bree, R. L., Schwab, R. E., The accuracy of CT in the staging of carcinoma of the prostate. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 149 (1987), 315–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hricak, H., Dooms, G. C., Jeffrey, R. B., et al., Prostatic carcinoma: staging by clinical assessment, CT, and MR imaging. Radiology, 162 (1987), 331–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, E., Milosevic, M. F., Haider, M. A., et al., Functional CT imaging of prostate cancer. Phys Med Biol, 48 (2003), 3085–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ives, E. P., Burke, M. A., Edmonds, P. R., et al., Quantitative computed tomography perfusion of prostate cancer: correlation with whole-mount pathology. Clin Prostate Cancer, 4 (2005), 109–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Padhani, A. R., Harvey, C. J., Cosgrove, D. O., Angiogenesis imaging in the management of prostate cancer. Nat Clin Pract Urol, 2 (2005), 596–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prando, A., Wallace, S., Helical CT of prostate cancer: early clinical experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 175 (2000), 343–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jeukens, C. R., Berg, C. A., Donker, R., et al., Feasibility and measurement precision of 3D quantitative blood flow mapping of the prostate using dynamic contrast-enhanced multi-slice CT. Phys Med Biol, 51 (2006), 4329–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rietbergen, J. B., Hoedemaeker, R. F., Kruger, A. E., et al., The changing pattern of prostate cancer at the time of diagnosis: characteristics of screen detected prostate cancer in a population based screening study. J Urol, 161 (1999), 1192–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, N., Newhouse, J. H., Olsson, C. A., et al., Which patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer need a computed tomography scan of the abdomen and pelvis? An analysis based on 588 patients. Urology, 54 (1999), 490–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huncharek, M., Muscat, J., Serum prostate-specific antigen as a predictor of staging abdominal/pelvic computed tomography in newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Abdom Imaging, 21 (1996), 364–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spencer, J. A., Chng, W. J., Hudson, E., et al., Prostate specific antigen level and Gleason score in predicting the stage of newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Br J Radiol, 71 (1998), 1130–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Dowd, G. J., Veltri, R. W., Orozco, R., et al., Update on the appropriate staging evaluation for newly diagnosed prostate cancer. J Urol, 158 (1997), 687–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levran, Z., Gonzalez, J. A., Diokno, A. C., et al., Are pelvic computed tomography, bone scan and pelvic lymphadenectomy necessary in the staging of prostatic cancer?Br J Urol, 75 (1995), 778–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flanigan, R. C., McKay, T. C., Olson, M., et al., Limited efficacy of preoperative computed tomographic scanning for the evaluation of lymph node metastasis in patients before radical prostatectomy. Urology, 48 (1996), 428–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartz, L. H., LaTrenta, L. R., Bonaccio, E., et al., Small cell and anaplastic prostate cancer: correlation between CT findings and prostate-specific antigen level. Radiology, 208 (1998), 735–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moul, J. W., Kane, C. J., Malkowicz, S. B., The role of imaging studies and molecular markers for selecting candidates for radical prostatectomy. Urol Clin North Am, 28 (2001), 459–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hricak, H., Schoder, H., Pucar, D., et al., Advances in imaging in the postoperative patient with a rising prostate-specific antigen level. Semin Oncol, 30 (2003), 616–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tiguert, R., Gheiler, E. L., Tefilli, M. V., et al., Lymph node size does not correlate with the presence of prostate cancer metastasis. Urology, 53 (1999), 367–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, Jr J. S.., Cher, M., Dall'era, M., et al., The use and accuracy of cross-sectional imaging and fine needle aspiration cytology for detection of pelvic lymph node metastases before radical prostatectomy. J Urol, 153 (1995), 993–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oyen, R. H., Poppel, H. P., Ameye, F. E., et al., Lymph node staging of localized prostatic carcinoma with CT and CT-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy: prospective study of 285 patients. Radiology, 190 (1994), 315–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flocks, R. H., Culp, D., Porto, R., Lymphatic spread from prostatic cancer. J Urol, 81 (1959), 194–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spencer, J., Golding, S., CT evaluation of lymph node status at presentation of prostatic carcinoma. Br J Radiol, 65 (1992), 199–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fung, A. Y., Grimm, S. Y., Wong, J. R., et al., Computed tomography localization of radiation treatment delivery versus conventional localization with bony landmarks. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 4 (2003), 112–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, D. J., Leibel, S., Shiels, R., et al., The value of ultrasonic imaging and CT scanning in planning the radiotherapy for prostatic carcinoma. Cancer, 45 (1980), 724–7.3.0.CO;2-9>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pilepich, M. V., Prasad, S. C., Perez, C. A., Computed tomography in definitive radiotherapy of prostatic carcinoma, part 2: definition of target volume. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 8 (1982), 235–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mens, J. W., Slotman, B. J., Meijer, O. W., et al., Effect of CT-based treatment planning on portal field size and outcome in radiation treatment of localized prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol, 55 (2000), 27–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bellon, J., Wallner, K., Ellis, W., et al., Use of pelvic CT scanning to evaluate pubic arch interference of transperineal prostate brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 43 (1999), 579–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milosevic, M., Voruganti, S., Blend, R., et al., Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for localization of the prostatic apex: comparison to computed tomography (CT) and urethrography. Radiother Oncol, 47 (1998), 277–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hocht, S., Wiegel, T., Bottke, D., et al., Computed tomogram prior to prostatectomy. Advantage in defining planning target volumes for postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy in patients with stage C prostate cancer?Strahlenther Onkol, 178 (2002), 134–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Roach, M., 3rd, Faillace-Akazawa, P., Malfatti, C., et al., Prostate volumes defined by magnetic resonance imaging and computerized tomographic scans for three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 35 (1996), 1011–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffelt, S. C., Marshall, L. M., Garzotto, M., et al., A comparison of CT scan to transrectal ultrasound-measured prostate volume in untreated prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 57 (2003), 29–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sannazzari, G. L., Ragona, R., Redda, M. G. Ruo, et al., CT-MRI image fusion for delineation of volumes in three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Br J Radiol, 75 (2002), 603–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wachter, S., Wachter-Gerstner, N., Bock, T., et al., Interobserver comparison of CT and MRI-based prostate apex definition. Clinical relevance for conformal radiotherapy treatment planning. Strahlenther Onkol, 178 (2002), 263–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berthelet, E., Liu, M. C., Agranovich, A., et al., Computed tomography determination of prostate volume and maximum dimensions: a study of interobserver variability. Radiother Oncol, 63 (2002), 37–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhou, S. M., Bentel, G. C., Lee, C. G., et al., Differences in gross target volumes on contrast vs. noncontrast CT scans utilized for conformal radiation therapy treatment planning for prostate carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 42 (1998), 73–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kalkner, K. M., Kubicek, G., Nilsson, J., et al., Prostate volume determination: differential volume measurements comparing CT and TRUS. Radiother Oncol, 81 (2006), 179–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Porter, A. T., Blasko, J. C., Grimm, P. D., et al., Brachytherapy for prostate cancer. CA Cancer J Clin, 45 (1995), 165–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gore, R. M., Moss, A. A., Value of computed tomography in interstitial 125I brachytherapy of prostatic carcinoma. Radiology, 146 (1983), 453–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mizowaki, T., Cohen, G. N., Fung, A. Y., et al., Towards integrating functional imaging in the treatment of prostate cancer with radiation: the registration of the MR spectroscopy imaging to ultrasound/CT images and its implementation in treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 54 (2002), 1558–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neill, M. G., Lockwood, G. A., McCluskey, S. A., et al., Preoperative evaluation of the “hostile pelvis” in radical prostatectomy with computed tomographic pelvimetry. BJU Int, 99 (2007), 534–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kramer, S., Gorich, J., Gottfried, H. W., et al., Sensitivity of computed tomography in detecting local recurrence of prostatic carcinoma following radical prostatectomy. Br J Radiol, 70 (1997), 995–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strohmaier, W. L., Keller, T., Bichler, K. H., Follow-up in prostate cancer patients: which parameters are necessary?Eur Urol, 35 (1999), 21–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yu, K. K., Hawkins, R. A., The prostate: diagnostic evaluation of metastatic disease. Radiol Clin North Am, 38 (2000), 139–57, ix.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spencer, J. A., Golding, S. J., Patterns of lymphatic metastases at recurrence of prostate cancer: CT findings. Clin Radiol, 49 (1994), 404–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glajchen, N., Shapiro, R. D., Stock, R. G., et al., CT findings after laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection and transperineal radioactive seed implantation for prostatic carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 166 (1996), 1165–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amdur, R. J., Gladstone, D., Leopold, K. A., et al., Prostate seed implant quality assessment using MR and CT image fusion. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 43 (1999), 67–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harvey, C. J., Blomley, M. J., Dawson, P., et al., Functional CT imaging of the acute hyperemic response to radiation therapy of the prostate gland: early experience. J Comput Assist Tomogr, 25 (2001), 43–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harvey, C., Morgan, J., Blomley, M., et al., Tumor responses to radiation therapy: use of dynamic contrast material-enhanced CT to monitor functional and anatomical indices. Acad Radiol, 9:Suppl 1 (2002), S215–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harvey, C., Dooher, A., Morgan, J., et al., Imaging of tumour therapy responses by dynamic CT. Eur J Radiol, 30 (1999), 221–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×