Preoperative assessment of prostatic carcinoma by computerized tomography

Engeler, Christopher E.; Wasserman, Neil F.; Zhang, Gang

doi:10.1016/0090-4295(92)90386-b

Cited by 85 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The T-stage tends to be underestimated based on imaging information with CT and with Ga-68 HBED-CC PSMA PET/CT. Underestimation might be due to the poor detection rates and a lack of soft tissue contrast of the CT in initial staging of primary cancer of the prostate [13]. Whilst Ga-68 HBED-CC PSMA PET/CT has better detection rates than CT but still lack from the same soft tissue contrast as the CT which makes it difficult to distinguish the subcategory of each T-stage in the prostate properly.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Usefulness of Ga-68 HBED-CC PSMA PET/CT for Tumor Staging in the Initial Diagnostic Assessment of Prostate Cancer

Schreiter¹,

Gericke²

2016

J Nucl Med Radiat Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Usefulness of Ga-68 HBED-CC PSMA PET/CT for Tumor Staging in the Initial Diagnostic Assessment of Prostate Cancer

Schreiter¹,

Gericke²

2016

J Nucl Med Radiat Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, the accuracy of local staging with CT was shown to be poor even with optimized techniques. For instance, sensitivity for capsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion ranges from 2 4 % -7 5 % and 3 2 % -69% respectively [17,18]. Gross extension of the disease can be readily detected but this is usually readily apparent to the urologist.…”

Section: Staging With Imaging (Nodal Metastases)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The sensitivity of CT for nodal involvement varies from 0% for small nodes with microscopic disease to 72% for more advanced disease [14,19]. False negatives result from microscopic nodal invasion within a node of normal size [17]. Its use, however, in the setting of preoperative assessment of prostate cancer is controversial.…”

Section: Staging With Imaging (Nodal Metastases)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Imaging of prostate cancer

1995

Abdom Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment is fast emerging as a major health care issue in the United States. However, there are great uncertainties about the value of specific tests and therapies. Imaging modalities play a major role in the current management of patients with prostate cancer and this role is likely to expand in the future. Transrectal ultrasound is used to identify nonpalpable lesions, direct systematic biopsies, determine gland volume and stage prostate cancers. For staging skeletal metastases, the bone scan is acknowledged as the best method, however controversy surrounds its routine use in patients with low prostate specific antigen (PSA) values. Computed tomography (CT) and transrectal ultrasound have limited value in detecting extracapsular disease but CT can be used in conjunction with percutaneous biopsy to identify nodal metastases. The role of Endorectal coil MRI is currently evolving in the wake of a disappointing multi-institutional trial but MRI still holds the most promise for accurately detecting local extent of prostate cancer. New radiolabeled techniques with monoclonal antibodies and peptide imaging are also having early but promising results. The role of imaging in prostate cancer is continuing to evolve as technology and knowledge about prostate cancer biology improves and health care economics force a more judicious use of imaging resources.

show abstract

“…CT scan has not been shown to provide significant and reliable help in staging. Engeler et al [15] reported only a 24% accuracy for identifying capsular extension and 69% accuracy for determining seminal vesicle invasion by CT. MRI with body coil is not better than TRUS for local staging of prostate cancer [16]; however, endorectal coil may have a role as it is reported to be more sensitive and specific than other imaging modalities in assessing local prostatic disease [17,18]. Fast spin-echo MRI may also be of value [19].…”

Section: Imaging Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical staging of prostate cancer: Reproducibility and clarification of issues

Campbell

Blasko

Crawford

et al. 2001

Intl Journal of Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for prostate cancer adopted in 1992 is based on tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) designations. It has been widely accepted for use in local and advanced disease. The purpose of this study was to assess reproducibility of staging among observers and to help clarify staging issues. Twelve prostate cancer cases were sent to 20 physicians with special expertise in prostate cancer including eight urologists, eight radiation oncologists, and four medical oncologists. Physicians were asked to assign a stage based on the 1992 AJCC clinical staging. The most frequently reported stage assigned to each case was taken to be the consensus.

show abstract

Preoperative assessment of prostatic carcinoma by computerized tomography

Cited by 85 publications

References 24 publications

Usefulness of Ga-68 HBED-CC PSMA PET/CT for Tumor Staging in the Initial Diagnostic Assessment of Prostate Cancer

Usefulness of Ga-68 HBED-CC PSMA PET/CT for Tumor Staging in the Initial Diagnostic Assessment of Prostate Cancer

Imaging of prostate cancer

Clinical staging of prostate cancer: Reproducibility and clarification of issues

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About