Download PDF
Radiologie up2date 2007; 7(2): 95-112
DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-966498
Urogenitale Radiologie

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Prostatakarzinom - Diagnostik und Staging

Prostate cancer - diagnostic and stagingT.  Franiel, D.  Beyersdorff
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
14 June 2007 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category

Zusammenfassung

Das Prostatakarzinom ist in Deutschland die häufigste maligne Neoplasie beim Mann. Das primär eingesetzte bildgebende Verfahren ist der transrektale Ultraschall (TRUS). Zum histologischen Nachweis eines Prostatakarzinoms wird bei erhöhtem PSA-Wert eine systematische TRUS-gesteuerte, transrektale Biopsie der Prostata durchgeführt. Bei ein- oder mehrmaliger negativer Stanzbiopsie kann die Indikation für eine MRT mit einer kombinierten Endorektal-Körper-Phased-Array-Spule bei 1,5 Tesla gestellt werden. Die dynamische, kontrastmittelunterstützte MRT und die Protonenmagnetresonanzspektroskopie können in Kombination mit der konventionellen MRT den Nachweis des Prostatakarzinoms verbessern. Für das lokale Staging des Prostatakarzinoms ist die MRT besser geeignet als die digitale rektale Untersuchung und der transrektale Ultraschall, wobei die in der Literatur genannten Treffsicherheiten für diese Verfahren sehr unterschiedlich sind. Für den Nachweis von Knochenmetastasen ist aktuell die Knochenszintigraphie mit 99mTc-Bisphosphonat die Methode der Wahl. Bessere Sensitivitäten konnten mit den neueren Verfahren wie der Ganzkörper-MRT und der PET mit den Tracern 18F-FDG, 11C-Cholin und 11C-Acetat erreicht werden.

Abstract

Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy of men in Germany. Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) is the primary used imaging modality. Patients with elevated PSA levels undergo systematic TRUS-guided transrectal biopsy of the prostate for histologic confirmation of prostate cancer. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using the combined endorectal body phased-array coil may be indicated in men with one or more negative prostate biopsies. The detection of prostate cancer by conventional MRI can be improved by an additional dynamic contrast-enhanced MR study and proton MR spectroscopy. Local staging of prostate cancer by MRI is more accurate compared with digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasound. However, accuracies reported in the literature for these procedures vary widely. Bone scintigraphy with 99mTc-bisphosphonate is currently the method of choice for the detection of bone metastases. However, more recent techniques such as whole-body MRI and PET using 18F-FDG, 11C-choline or 11C-acetate as tracers were found to have higher sensitivities.

Key words

Prostate cancer - TRUS - MRI - MRS - PET

Literatur

  • 1 Schmelz H U. Onkologie und Tumoren.  In: Facharztwissen Urologie. Heidelberg; Springer 2006: 224-256
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Bertz J, Hentschel S, Stabenow R. et al .Prostata. In: Institut GdeKiDeViZmdRK (ed.) Krebs in Deutschland - Häufigkeiten und Trends. Saarbrücken; Gesellschaft der epidemiologischen Krebsregister in Deutschland e. V. in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Robert Koch Institut 2006: 13-19, 68 - 71
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Jung K, Elgeti U, Lein M. et al . Ratio of free or complexed prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to total PSA: which ratio improves differentiation between benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostate cancer?.  Clin Chem. 2000;  46 55-62
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Gleason D F, Mellinger G T. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging.  J Urol. 1974;  111 58-64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Mehta S S, Azzouzi A R, Hamdy F C. Three dimensional ultrasound and prostate cancer.  World J Urol. 2004;  22 339-345
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Raja J, Ramachandran N, Munneke G, Patel U. Current status of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer.  Clin Radiol. 2006;  61 142-153
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Frauscher F, Klauser A, Halpern E J. Advances in ultrasound for the detection of prostate cancer.  Ultrasound Q. 2002;  18 135-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Roehl K A, Antenor J A, Catalona W J. Serial biopsy results in prostate cancer screening study.  J Urol. 2002;  167 2435-2439
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Djavan B, Ravery V, Zlotta A. et al . Prospective evaluation of prostate cancer detected on biopsies 1, 2, 3 and 4: when should we stop?.  J Urol. 2001;  166 1679-1683
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Heijmink S W, van Moerkerk H, Kiemeney L A. et al . A comparison of the diagnostic performance of systematic versus ultrasound-guided biopsies of prostate cancer.  Eur Radiol. 2006;  16 927-938
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Pelzer A, Bektic J, Berger A P. et al . Prostate cancer detection in men with prostate specific antigen 4 to 10 ng/ml using a combined approach of contrast enhanced color Doppler targeted and systematic biopsy.  J Urol. 2005;  173 1926-1929
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Halpern E J, McCue P A, Aksnes A K. et al . Contrast-enhanced US of the prostate with Sonazoid: comparison with whole-mount prostatectomy specimens in 12 patients.  Radiology. 2002;  222 361-366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Leventis A K, Shariat S F, Slawin K M. Local recurrence after radical prostatectomy: correlation of US features with prostatic fossa biopsy findings.  Radiology. 2001;  219 432-439
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Sella T, Schwartz L H, Swindle P W. et al . Suspected local recurrence after radical prostatectomy: endorectal coil MR imaging.  Radiology. 2004;  231 379-385
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Beyersdorff D, Darsow U, Stephan C. et al . MRI of prostate cancer using three different coil systems: image quality, tumor detection, and staging.  Rofo. 2003;  175 799-805
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hricak H. MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging in the pre-treatment evaluation of prostate cancer.  Br J Radiol. 2005;  78 Spec No 2 S103-S111
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Beyersdorff D, Hamm B. MRT zur Problemlösung beim Nachweis des Prostatakarzinoms.  Fortschr Röntgenstr. 2005;  177 788-795
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Futterer J J, Engelbrecht M R, Huisman H J. et al . Staging prostate cancer with dynamic contrast-enhanced endorectal MR imaging prior to radical prostatectomy: experienced versus less experienced readers.  Radiology. 2005;  237 541-549
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Beyersdorff D, Taupitz M, Winkelmann B. et al . Patients with a history of elevated prostate-specific antigen levels and negative transrectal US-guided quadrant or sextant biopsy results: value of MR imaging.  Radiology. 2002;  224 701-706
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Ikonen S, Kivisaari L, Tervahartiala P. et al . Prostatic MR imaging. Accuracy in differentiating cancer from other prostatic disorders.  Acta Radiol. 2001;  42 348-354
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Huch Boni R A, Boner J A, Lutolf U M. et al . Contrast-enhanced endorectal coil MRI in local staging of prostate carcinoma.  J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1995;  19 232-237
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Futterer J J, Heijmink S W, Scheenen T W. et al . Prostate Cancer Localization with Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging and Proton MR Spectroscopic Imaging.  Radiology. 2006;  241 449-458
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Costello L C, Franklin R B, Narayan P. Citrate in the diagnosis of prostate cancer.  Prostate. 1999;  38 237-245
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Costello L C, Franklin R B. Concepts of citrate production and secretion by prostate. 1. Metabolic relationships.  Prostate. 1991;  18 25-46
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Costello L C, Franklin R B. Concepts of citrate production and secretion by prostate: 2. Hormonal relationships in normal and neoplastic prostate.  Prostate. 1991;  19 181-205
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron D B, Hricak H. et al . Three-dimensional H-1 MR spectroscopic imaging of the in situ human prostate with high (0.24 - 0.7-cm3) spatial resolution.  Radiology. 1996;  198 795-805
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Mueller-Lisse U G, Vigneron D B, Hricak H. et al . Localized prostate cancer: effect of hormone deprivation therapy measured by using combined three-dimensional 1H MR spectroscopy and MR imaging: clinicopathologic case-controlled study.  Radiology. 2001;  221 380-390
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Engelhard K, Hollenbach H P, Kiefer B. et al . Prostate biopsy in the supine position in a standard 1.5-T scanner under real time MR-imaging control using a MR-compatible endorectal biopsy device.  Eur Radiol. 2006;  16 1237-1243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Harisinghani M G, Barentsz J, Hahn P F. et al . Noninvasive detection of clinically occult lymph-node metastases in prostate cancer.  N Engl J Med. 2003;  348 2491-2499
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Lauenstein T C, Freudenberg L S, Goehde S C. et al . Whole-body MRI using a rolling table platform for the detection of bone metastases.  Eur Radiol. 2002;  12 2091-2099
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Nakanishi K, Kobayashi M, Takahashi S. et al . Whole body MRI for detecting metastatic bone tumor: comparison with bone scintigrams.  Magn Reson Med Sci. 2005;  4 11-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Lauenstein T C, Goehde S C, Herborn C U. et al . Whole-body MR imaging: evaluation of patients for metastases.  Radiology. 2004;  233 139-148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Sala E, Eberhardt S C, Akin O. et al . Endorectal MR imaging before salvage prostatectomy: tumor localization and staging.  Radiology. 2006;  238 176-183
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Schoder H, Larson S M. Positron emission tomography for prostate, bladder, and renal cancer.  Semin Nucl Med. 2004;  34 274-292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Lawrentschuk N, Davis I D, Bolton D M, Scott A M. Positron emission tomography and molecular imaging of the prostate: an update.  BJU Int. 2006;  97 923-931
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Jana S, Blaufox M D. Nuclear medicine studies of the prostate, testes, and bladder.  Semin Nucl Med. 2006;  36 51-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Langsteger W, Heinisch M, Fogelman I. The role of fluorodeoxyglucose, 18F-dihydroxyphenylalanine, 18F-choline, and 18F-fluoride in bone imaging with emphasis on prostate and breast.  Semin Nucl Med. 2006;  36 73-92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Cher M L, Bianco Jr F J , Lam J S. et al . Limited role of radionuclide bone scintigraphy in patients with prostate specific antigen elevations after radical prostatectomy.  J Urol. 1998;  160 1387-1391
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Dr. Tobias Franiel

Institut für Radiologie

Charité, Universitätsmedizin Berlin

Charitéplatz 1

D-10117 Berlin

Phone: 030 450-527018

Fax: 030 450-527911

Email: tobias.franiel@charite.de

      >