Imaging in oncology is an essential tool for patient management but its potential is being profoundly underutilized. Each of the techniques used in the diagnostic process also conveys functional information that can be relevant in treatment decision-making. New imaging algorithms and techniques enhance our knowledge about the phenotype of the tumor and its potential response to different therapies. Functional imaging can be defined as the one that provides information beyond the purely morphological data, and include all the techniques that make it possible to measure specific physiological functions of the tumor, whereas molecular imaging would include techniques that allow us to measure metabolic changes. Functional and molecular techniques included in this document are based on multi-detector computed tomography (CT), 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG PET), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and hybrid equipments, integrating PET with CT (PET/CT) or MRI (PET-MRI). Lung cancer is one of the most frequent and deadly tumors although survival is increasing thanks to advances in diagnostic methods and new treatments. This increased survival poises challenges in terms of proper follow-up and definitions of response and progression, as exemplified by immune therapy-related pseudoprogression. In this consensus document, the use of functional and molecular imaging techniques will be addressed to exploit their current potential and explore future applications in the diagnosis, evaluation of response and detection of recurrence of advanced NSCLC.

To evaluate the efficacy of endorectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Magnetic Resonance Spetroscopic Imaging (MRSI) combined with total prostate-specific antigen (tPSA) and free prostate-specific antigen (fPSA) in selecting candidates for biopsy. Subjects and Methods: 246 patients with elevated tPSA (median: 7.81 ng/ml) underwent endorectal MRI and MRSI before Transrectal Ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy (10 peripheral + 2 central cores); patients with positive biopsies were treated with radical intention; those with negative biopsies were followed up and underwent MRSI before each additional biopsy if tPSA rose persistently. Mean follow-up: 27.6 months. We compared MRI, MRSI, tPSA, and fPSA with histopathology by sextant and determined the association between the Gleason score and MRI and MRSI. We determined the most accurate combination to detect prostate cancer (PCa) using receiver operating curves; we estimated the odds ratios (OR) and calculated sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. Results: No difference in tPSA was found between patients with and without PCa (p = 0.551). In the peripheral zone, the risk of PCa increased with MRSI grade; patients with high-grade MRSI had the greatest risk of PCa over time (OR = 328.6); the model including MRI, MRSI, tPSA, and fPSA was more accurate (Area under Curve: AUC = 95.7%) than MRI alone (AUC = 85.1%) or fPSA alone (AUC = 78.1%), but not than MRSI alone (94.5%). In the transitional zone, the model was less accurate (AUC = 84.4%). The association (p = 0.005) between MRSI and Gleason score was significant in both zones. Conclusions: MRSI is useful in patients with elevated tPSA. High-grade MRSI lesions call for repeated biopsies. Men with negative MRSI may forgo further biopsies because a significantly high Gleason lesion is very unlikel

No abstract