Incremental value of magnetic resonance imaging in the advanced management of prostate cancer

Imaging for Oncologic Response Assessment in Lymphoma

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article is to examine the role of different imaging biomarkers, focusing in particular on the use of updated CT and PET response criteria for the assessment of oncologic treatment effectiveness in patients with lymphoma but also discussing other potential functional imaging methods and their limitations.

CONCLUSION

Lymph nodes are commonly involved by metastatic solid tumors as well as by lymphoma. Evolving changes in cancer therapy for lymphoma and metastases have led to improved clinical outcomes. Imaging is a recognized surrogate endpoint that uses established criteria based on changes in tumor bulk to monitor the effects of treatment. With the introduction of targeted therapies and novel antiangiogenic drugs, the oncologic expectations from imaging assessment are changing to move beyond simple morphologic methods. Molecular and functional imaging methods (e.g., PET, perfusion, DWI, and dual-energy CT) are therefore being investigated as imaging biomarkers of response and prognosis. The role of these advanced imaging biomarkers extends beyond measuring tumor burden and therefore might offer insight into early predictors of therapeutic response. Despite the potential benefits of these exciting imaging biomarkers, several challenges currently exist.

Focal therapy for prostate cancer - where are we in 2011?

Prostate cancer treatment is a controversial topic amongst physicians and patients alike. Radical therapies such as prostatectomy and whole gland radiation offer the best outcomes in terms of oncologic efficacy, but the decision to undergo treatment must be weighed against its potential morbidity. Over the past decade, the concept of focal therapy for prostate cancer has been introduced as a potential method of achieving oncologic control with a lesser degree of morbidity. Focal therapy refers to isolated ablation of a tumor focus with sparing of uninvolved, surrounding tissue. While it remains in the early stages of development, considerable research is underway that will help determine the optimal method of achieving this goal. Current areas of investigation include appropriate candidate selection, lesion identification, modality of treatment, and follow-up strategies.

[Active surveillance for prostate cancer: usefulness of endorectal MR at 1.5 Tesla with pelvic phased array coil in detecting significant tumors]

PURPOSE

To describe and assess MRI signs of significant tumor in a series of patients who all underwent radical prostatectomy and also fulfilled criteria to choose active surveillance according to French "SurAcaP" protocol.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The clinical reports of 681 consecutive patients operated on for prostate cancer between 2002 and 2007 were reviewed retrospectively. All patients had endorectal MR (1.5 Tesla) with pelvic phased array coil. (1.5 T erMR PPA). Sixty-one patients (8.9%) fulfilled "SurAcaP" protocol criteria. Preoperative data (MR+core biopsy) were assessed by comparison to whole-mount step section pathology.

RESULTS

85.3% of the 61 patients entering SurAcaP protocol had significant tumor at pathology. (Non Organ Confined Disease (Non OCD)=8.2%, Gleason sum score>6=39.2%). A new exclusion criterion has been assessed: T3MRI±NPS>1 as a predictor tool of significant tumor. ("T3MRI±NPS>1"=Non OCD at MR±number of positive sextants involved in tumor at MR and/or Core Biopsy > to 1). Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV of the criterion "T3MRI±NPS>1" in predicting significant tumor were, respectively: 77%, 33%, 86%, 20%. Adding this criterion to other criteria of the "SurAcaP" protocol could allow the exclusion of all Non OCD, and a decrease in Gleason sum Score>6 rates (20%).

CONCLUSION

Endorectal MR at 1.5 Tesla with pelvic-phased array coil should be considered when selecting patients for active surveillance in the management of prostate cancer. A criterion based upon MR and core biopsy findings, called "T3MR±NSP>1" may represent an exclusion citeria due to its ability to predict significant tumor.