Prostate Carcinoma: Urologist's Perspective

Abstract

Prostate cancer management has undergone radical changes in recent times, due to early diagnosis in localized stage and availability of multiple treatment modalities. But the onus of selecting appropriate treatment rests with the urologist. Radiological investigations are immensely important in these patients. Measurement of prostate-specific antigen and its derivatives is the primary investigation in the diagnosis of prostate carcinoma. Ultrasonogram is of limited utility in prostate carcinoma. Magnetic resonance imaging provides extensive information to the treating physician regarding the approach and the treatment modality to be used in the management of prostate carcinoma. Radiological investigations are the cornerstones for efficient management of prostate carcinoma.

Keywords

MRI prostate - prostate - prostate cancer - prostate imaging

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
26. März 2024

• References

• 1 Bergengren O, Pekala KR, Matsoukas K. et al. 2022 update on prostate cancer epidemiology and risk factors: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2023; 84 (02) 191-206
• 2 Valerio M, Ahmed HU, Emberton M. et al. The role of focal therapy in the management of localised prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2014; 66 (04) 732-751
• 3 Dubey D. The routine use of prostate-specific antigen for early detection of cancer prostate in India: is it justified?. Indian J Urol 2009; 25 (02) 177-184
• 4 Carlsson SV, Vickers AJ. Screening for prostate cancer. Med Clin North Am 2020; 104 (06) 1051-1062
• 5 Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Månsson M. et al; ERSPC investigators. A 16-yr follow-up of the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2019; 76 (01) 43-51
• 6 Hugosson J, Godtman RA, Carlsson SV. et al. Eighteen-year follow-up of the Göteborg Randomized Population-based Prostate Cancer Screening Trial: effect of sociodemographic variables on participation, prostate cancer incidence and mortality. Scand J Urol 2018; 52 (01) 27-37
• 7 Pinsky PF, Miller E, Prorok P, Grubb R, Crawford ED, Andriole G. Extended follow-up for prostate cancer incidence and mortality among participants in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian randomized cancer screening trial. BJU Int 2019; 123 (05) 854-860
• 8 Makarov DV, Carter HB. The discovery of prostate specific antigen as a biomarker for the early detection of adenocarcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 2006; 176 (6, Pt 1): 2383-2385
• 9 Matti B, Xia W, van der Werf B, Zargar-Shoshtari K. Age-adjusted reference values for prostate specific antigen: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2022; 20 (02) e114-e125
• 10 Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ. et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med 2004; 350 (22) 2239-2246
• 11 Sivaraman A, Bhat KRS. Screening and detection of prostate cancer: review of literature and current perspective. Indian J Surg Oncol 2017; 8 (02) 160-168
• 12 Yim K, Ma C, Carlsson S. et al. Free PSA and clinically significant and fatal prostate cancer in the PLCO screening trial. J Urol 2023; 210 (04) 630-638
• 13 Roddam AW, Duffy MJ, Hamdy FC. et al; NHS Prostate Cancer Risk Management Programme. Use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) isoforms for the detection of prostate cancer in men with a PSA level of 2-10 ng/ml: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2005; 48 (03) 386-399 , discussion 398–399
• 14 Djavan B, Zlotta A, Kratzik C. et al. PSA, PSA density, PSA density of transition zone, free/total PSA ratio, and PSA velocity for early detection of prostate cancer in men with serum PSA 2.5 to 4.0 ng/mL. Urology 1999; 54 (03) 517-522
• 15 Nordström T, Akre O, Aly M, Grönberg H, Eklund M. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density in the diagnostic algorithm of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2018; 21 (01) 57-63
• 16 Loeb S, Sanda MG, Broyles DL. et al. The prostate health index selectively identifies clinically significant prostate cancer. J Urol 2015; 193 (04) 1163-1169
• 17 McDonald ML, Parsons JK. 4-kallikrein test and kallikrein markers in prostate cancer screening. Urol Clin North Am 2016; 43 (01) 39-46
• 18 Tosoian JJ, Ross AE, Sokoll LJ, Partin AW, Pavlovich CP. Urinary biomarkers for prostate cancer. Urol Clin North Am 2016; 43 (01) 17-38
• 19 Sivaraman A, Ramasamy V, Aarthy P, Sankar V, Sivaraman PB. Safety and feasibility of freehand transperineal prostate biopsy under local anesthesia: our initial experience. Indian J Urol 2022; 38 (01) 34-41
• 20 Razek AAKA, El-Diasty T, Elhendy A, Fahmy D, El-Adalany MA. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS): what the radiologists need to know?. Clin Imaging 2021; 79: 183-200
• 21 Ahdoot M, Lebastchi AH, Long L. et al; Trio Study Group. Using Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores to select an optimal prostate biopsy method: a secondary analysis of the Trio study. Eur Urol Oncol 2022; 5 (02) 176-186
• 22 Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC. et al; PROMIS study group. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017; 389 (10071): 815-822
• 23 Mohseninia N, Zamani-Siahkali N, Harsini S, Divband G, Pirich C, Beheshti M. Bone metastasis in prostate cancer: bone scan versus PET imaging. Semin Nucl Med 2024; 54 (01) 97-118
• 24 Hicks RM, Simko JP, Westphalen AC. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI compared with multiparametric MRI in the detection of prostate cancer. Radiology 2018; 289 (03) 730-737
• 25 Patel VR, Sivaraman A, Coelho RF. et al. Pentafecta: a new concept for reporting outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2011; 59 (05) 702-707