The major goal for prostate cancer imaging in the next decade is more accurate disease characterization through the synthesis of anatomic, functional, and molecular imaging information. No consensus exists regarding the use of imaging for evaluating primary prostate cancers. Ultrasonography is mainly used for biopsy guidance and brachytherapy seed placement. Endorectal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is helpful for evaluating local tumor extent, and MR spectroscopic imaging can improve this evaluation while providing information about tumor aggressiveness. MR imaging with superparamagnetic nanoparticles has high sensitivity and specificity in depicting lymph node metastases, but guidelines have not yet been developed for its use, which remains restricted to the research setting. Computed tomography (CT) is reserved for the evaluation of advanced disease. The use of combined positron emission tomography/CT is limited in the assessment of primary disease but is gaining acceptance in prostate cancer treatment follow-up. Evidence-based guidelines for the use of imaging in assessing the risk of distant spread of prostate cancer are available. Radionuclide bone scanning and CT supplement clinical and biochemical evaluation (prostate-specific antigen [PSA], prostatic acid phosphate) for suspected metastasis to bones and lymph nodes. Guidelines for the use of bone scanning (in patients with PSA level > 10 ng/mL) and CT (in patients with PSA level > 20 ng/mL) have been published and are in clinical use. Nevertheless, changes in practice patterns have been slow. This review presents a multidisciplinary perspective on the optimal role of modern imaging in prostate cancer detection, staging, treatment planning, and follow-up.

MR spectroscopic imaging measurement of prostate tumor (Cho + Cr)/Cit and tumor volume correlate with pathologic Gleason score. There is overlap between MR spectroscopic imaging parameters at various Gleason score levels, which may reflect methodologic and physiologic variations. MR spectroscopic imaging has potential in noninvasive assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness.

Patients receiving a PI-RADS assessment category of 3 to 5 warrant repeat biopsy with image guided targeting. While transrectal ultrasound guided magnetic resonance imaging fusion or in-bore magnetic resonance imaging targeting may be valuable for more reliable targeting, especially for lesions that are small or in difficult locations, in the absence of such targeting technologies cognitive (visual) targeting remains a reasonable approach in skilled hands. At least 2 targeted cores should be obtained from each magnetic resonance imaging defined target. Given the number of studies showing a proportion of missed clinically significant cancers by magnetic resonance imaging targeted cores, a case specific decision must be made whether to also perform concurrent systematic sampling. However, performing solely targeted biopsy should only be considered once quality assurance efforts have validated the performance of prostate magnetic resonance imaging interpretations with results consistent with the published literature. In patients with negative or low suspicion magnetic resonance imaging (PI-RADS assessment category of 1 or 2, respectively), other ancillary markers (ie PSA, PSAD, PSAV, PCA3, PHI, 4K) may be of value in identifying patients warranting repeat systematic biopsy, although further data are needed on this topic. If a repeat biopsy is deferred on the basis of magnetic resonance imaging findings, then continued clinical and laboratory followup is advised and consideration should be given to incorporating repeat magnetic resonance imaging in this diagnostic surveillance regimen.

No abstract

A model containing endorectal MR imaging findings has a significantly larger area under the ROC curve than a model containing only clinical variables; thus, endorectal MR imaging findings add incremental value in the prediction of ECE.