Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
In Vivo
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
In Vivo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit iiar on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies

Detection of Local Recurrence with 3-Tesla MRI After Radical Prostatectomy: A Useful Method for Radiation Treatment Planning?

DANIEL BUERGY, METIN SERTDEMIR, ANJA WEIDNER, MOHAMED SHELAN, FRANK LOHR, FREDERIK WENZ, STEFAN O. SCHOENBERG and ULRIKE I. ATTENBERGER
In Vivo January 2018, 32 (1) 125-131;
DANIEL BUERGY
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: daniel.buergy{at}umm.de
METIN SERTDEMIR
2Medical Care Center Radiology Karlsruhe West, Karlsruhe, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
ANJA WEIDNER
3Institute of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MOHAMED SHELAN
4Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
FRANK LOHR
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
FREDERIK WENZ
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
STEFAN O. SCHOENBERG
3Institute of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
ULRIKE I. ATTENBERGER
3Institute of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background/Aim: Salvage radiotherapy improves biochemical control in patients with recurrence of prostate cancer after prostatectomy. Radiotherapy target volumes of the prostatic fossa are based on empirical data and differ between different guidelines. Localization of recurrence with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) might be a feasible approach to localize recurrent lesions. Patients and Methods: Twenty-one patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy were included (median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) =0.17 ng/ml). Multi-parametric MRI was performed using a 3-T MR system. Results: Lesions were detected in seven patients with a median PSA of 0.86 ng/ml (minimum= 0.31 ng/ml). Patients without detectable recurrence had a median PSA of 0.12 ng/ml. All patients with detectable lesions responded to radiotherapy. Eleven out of 14 patients without detectable recurrence also responded. Plasma flow in suspicious lesions was correlated with PSA level. Conclusion: Detection of recurrence at the prostatic fossa with our approach was possible in a minority of patients with a low PSA level. Clinical relevance of plasma flow in suspicious lesions should be further investigated.

  • Prostate carcinoma
  • radiation therapy
  • salvage treatment
  • radical prostatectomy
  • MRI

Prostate carcinoma is the second most common cancer in males (1) and although mortality rates have decreased in European countries and the United States (US), it still accounts for more than 258,000 deaths worldwide (2). According to the US-population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program database, ~80% of men with newly diagnosed prostate carcinoma had localized disease at the time of diagnosis (3). Most of these patients selected radical prostatectomy or external beam radiotherapy as their primary treatment option (4, 5). Recurrence rates after radical prostatectomy differ widely between around 10% of patients and more than 30% within 5 years (6-8), depending on Gleason score and other risk factors (6). In patients with positive surgical margins, it can be estimated that 20-40% of tumors recur (9, 10) and the majority of patients with biochemical relapse are diagnosed as having local recurrence (11). Radiotherapy as salvage treatment has been shown to improve biochemical control in patients with residual disease or biochemical relapse (12, 13). Stephenson et al. estimated that biochemical control can be achieved by radiotherapy in 48% of patients when salvage treatment starts before the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level reaches 0.5 ng/ml; if administered at a PSA level of 0.5 ng/ml and above, only 26% of patients treated were free from (further) relapse (14). These results have been confirmed by modern series which additionally showed a clinical benefit in terms of distant metastasis-free survival, disease-specific mortality, and all-cause mortality (15). Furthermore, modern series indicated early salvage radiotherapy, initiated at the earliest sign of measurable PSA, to be beneficial in terms of biochemical and clinical endpoints (15, 16). Severe toxicity of salvage radiotherapy is generally reported to be low (17) but even in modern series, there is a residual risk of grade 3/4 bowel or urinary toxicity (18).

Timing of salvage treatment in patients who have not received adjuvant radiotherapy remains controversial. According to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines (19) “treatment is most effective when pre-treatment PSA level is below 0.5 ng/ml”; however, the indication for salvage radiotherapy also includes “an undetectable PSA that becomes detectable and then increases on 2 subsequent measurements” (19). European guidelines propose salvage radiation before the PSA level increases to 0.5 ng/ml (20), and the American Society for Radiation Oncology/American Urological Association guidelines at earliest sign of PSA recurrence after undetectable PSA has been achieved (17). The latter approach is in line with aforementioned studies by Stish et al. (15), as well as that of Tendulkar et al. (16), published in 2016.

Local relapses are located at the urethro-vesical anastomosis in most cases (21-23). There are, however considerable differences in target volume definition between the four published consensus guidelines of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (24), the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (25), the Australian and New Zealand Radiation Oncology Genito-Urinary Group (26), and the Princess Margaret Hospital (27)] in terms of size and prostate bed coverage (28, 29). In a comparative study (29), radiotherapy plans contoured according to consensus guidelines failed to meet QUANTEC (30), and RADICALS (31) trial dose constraints in 75%, and 40% of cases, respectively. These inconsistencies indicate that our current approaches to salvage treatment of prostate carcinoma after radical prostatectomy should be reassessed. Improvement of therapeutic efficacy could be achieved by reducing geographical miss and side-effects by accurate detection of residual disease.

Detection of residual prostate carcinoma is possible by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron-emission tomography–computed tomography (PET-CT). Evidence on restaging of biochemically relapsed patients with PET-CT was recently reviewed by Umbehr et al. (32). The authors analyzed 12 studies and found a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 85%, and 88%, respectively (mean PSA=7.9 ng/ml). In patients with early relapse (PSA <1 ng/ml), however, the authors found no convincing evidence for the use of PET-CT.

MRI with (33-35) and without (36) endorectal coil represents an alternative for detecting local recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Most studies have been performed on 1.5-T MR systems (33-36) and local recurrence was in some cases detected in patients with PSA levels of 1-2 ng/ml or less (35-38). Despite these results, it remains controversial, if local recurrence may be detected by 1.5-T MRI before PSA levels rise above 1 ng/ml (20). This would facilitate early targeted salvage radiation before a PSA level is reached of which probability for biochemical control is impaired (14, 39).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Characteristics of 21 patients after radical prostatectomy for prostate carcinoma.

We assumed that with 3-T MRI protocols (40-42), detection of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy is feasible at early stages when the PSA value is still below 1 ng/ml. Accurate detection would further reduce geographical miss and most probably enhance therapeutic ratio, by dose escalation to small residual volumes (18) or reduction of treated volumes. In addition, visualization of tumor vasculature with quantification of plasma flow (PF) and mean transit time (MTT) might further add functional information for improved target definition.

Patients and Methods

Patients. From September 2008 to November 2012, 28 patients with suspected local recurrence after radical prostatectomy were scanned by MRI. Seven patients were excluded from analysis because of identification of metastatic disease at MRI in two, refusal of radiotherapy in one, missing PSA test between surgery and radiotherapy in one, technical problems in one and artifacts due to foreign material in the bladder, and MRI appointment after start of radiotherapy in two. The majority of the remaining 21 patients presented because of PSA persistence or progression after R0 surgery in 14, biochemical progression after R1 surgery in five, and R1 surgery with residual PSA level in two.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Suspected local recurrence after radical prostatectomy in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (quantitative color-coded maps) demonstrates nodular lesion with increased plasma flow (PF) (a) and decreased mean transit time (MTT) values (b) in comparison to the surrounding tissue (PF=159.3 ml/100 ml/min; MTT=65.32 s).

All patients included in the analysis received radiotherapy to the prostatic fossa. Target volume dose was 70 Gy (five fractions per week, 2 Gy per fraction); patients with identifiable localization of residual disease (either by MRI or by positive surgical margins) received an integrated boost up to 75 Gy targeted at the recurrent tumor volume. Irradiation of pelvic lymph nodes was performed to a dose of 44 Gy if positive nodes were found at surgery or if lymph node resection was deemed insufficient, and the preoperative risk of lymph node involvement was >15% based on the Roach-Formula. Detailed results of the radiotherapy regimens applied have been reported elsewhere (18). Further patient characteristics are detailed in Table I. This retrospective study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Heidelberg University, Medical Faculty Mannheim (2008-338N-MA).

MRI protocol. MRI was performed on a 3-T MR system (Magnetom TimTrio; Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany) utilizing a 12-channel body coil. To suppress bowel motion, up to 40 mg N-butylscopolaminium (Buscopan®; Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, Ingelheim, Germany) was injected intravenously. All patients were examined in feet-first supine position. Imaging protocols consisted of a high-resolution, T2-weighted triplanar turbo spin echo sequence, an axial, fat-suppressed, single-shot, echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequence and an axial, 2D, T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced DCE scan using a spoiled gradient echo saturation recovery TurboFLASH sequence. The DCE MRI examination was performed after bolus injection of 0.1 mmol/kg body weight of gadolinium chelate (Dotarem®; Guerbet, Roissy, France) with a bolus velocity of 2.5 ml/s using a power injector (Medrad Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, USA) followed by a saline flush of 40 ml. Imaging parameters of the T2w, DCE and DWI sequence MRI are summarized in detail in Table II.

Post-processing and data analysis. A radiologist (M.S.) with 5 years' experience in prostate MRI post-processed the DCE MRI data using open source software tool towards quantitative MRI perfusion analysis (UMM Perfusion, OsiriX DICOM viewer, Version 3.9.4; The OsiriX Foundation, Geneva, Switzerland) (43). For each patient, nodules with focally altered perfusion parameters in the prostate bed were considered suspicious. DCE and T2-weighted images were also taken into account for differential diagnosis between nodules and artifacts such as clips or bowel movements. Contrast enhancement curves were analyzed with a model-free deconvolution analysis as described elsewhere (40, 41, 44). The arterial input function was measured in a plane with clear delineation of the common femoral artery at arrival of contrast agent. Quantitative color-coded maps of PF and MTT were calculated by de-convolving pixel-based concentration-time curves with the AIF as published previously (40-42). On the quantitative color-coded PF and MTT maps, nodular lesions with increased PF and decreased MTT values in comparison to the surrounding structures were defined as suspicious for recurrence, and one region of interest (ROI) was drawn in the area with suspicious increased PF and decreased MTT values in the prostatic fossa. For all ROIs, PF and MTT values were measured as the mean of pixel values. A defined ROI volume of 0.2×0.2 cm2 was delineated for all detectable lesions.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

Scan parameters of the T2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) magnetic resonance imaging sequences.

Statistical analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 15.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Significance was defined as p≤0.05. Differences of quantitative variables between independent groups were tested using the Mann-Whitney U-test. The two-sample paired Wilcoxon test was used to compared quantitative variables between corresponding samples (pre-therapeutic vs. post-therapeutic). Correlations among continuous variables were computed by Spearman's rank-order correlation.

Results

Two independent radiologists who were blinded to PSA levels identified suspicious nodular lesions with increased PF and decreased MTT values in seven out of 21 cases (an example is depicted in Figure 1).

The median PSA level in patients whose local recurrence was identified in MRI was 0.86 ng/ml [mean=1.65 ng/ml; standard deviation (SD)=1.67 ng/ml]). The minimum PSA level in a patient whose tumor was suspected by MRI was 0.31 ng/ml. Of seven patients with suspicious findings in MRI, five had a PSA level of less than 1 ng/ml (three of these patients had a PSA level less than 0.5 ng/ml).

In patients without detectable recurrence, the median PSA was 0.12 ng/ml (mean=0.168 ng/ml; SD=0.174 ng/ml). Two out of 14 patients whose recurrence was not detected by MRI had a PSA value greater than 0.21 ng/ml (0.33 and 0.71 ng/ml, respectively; see Figure 2). The difference between PSA levels in patients with suspected lesion in MRI versus those without localizable tumor was significant (p=0.001; Mann-Whitney U-test; Figure 2).

In the group of patients with lesions deemed as suspicious by MRI, PF at the suspect lesion (ROI=0.2×0.2 cm) was associated with increased PSA level (p=0.014; r=0.857; Spearman's rank correlation coefficient), MTT was not associated with PSA (p=0.383; r=−0.393) or PF (p=0.253; r=−0.5) in the analyzed group of patients.

In the first follow-up examination after radiotherapy (6-12 weeks after irradiation), the median PSA level was reduced as compared to the pre-radiotherapy level in all patients whose recurrent tumor had been detected by MRI (0.04 ng/ml after radiotherapy vs. 0.86 ng/ml before radiotherapy; p=0.018; Wilcoxon test). In patients whose tumors was not detected by MRI, the median PSA level in the first follow-up after radiotherapy was also lower as compared to the pre-therapeutic level (0.085 ng/ml after radiotherapy vs. 0.12 ng/ml before radiotherapy; p=0.039; Wilcoxon test). In two patients of the group with undetectable recurrence, the PSA level after radiotherapy had risen, and in one patient, PSA was unchanged as compared to the level before radiotherapy, consistent with suspected distant disease.

Discussion

Optimal timing of salvage radiotherapy is still the subject of discussion. Subanalyses of the SWOG8974 trial demonstrated improved metastasis-free survival in patients with all PSA levels (<0.2 ng/ml, 0.2-1.0 ng/ml, >1.0 ng/ml) after prostatectomy when salvage radiotherapy was applied (11). Nevertheless, accumulating evidence indicates that treatment should be initiated early after the detection of biochemical recurrence at a PSA level of 0.2 ng/ml. In a systematic review encompassing 5597 patients, King estimated that each further PSA increment of 0.1 ng/ml is associated with an average 2.6% loss of biochemical relapse-free survival (39). Given these findings and the need to further improve the therapeutic ratio in salvage radiotherapy, we should aim for early detection of local recurrence by modern imaging techniques. As discussed above, there is currently no convincing evidence for the use of PET-CT in this clinical setting (32).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Comparison of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels in patients whose tumor could not be detected by magnetic resonance imaging versus patients who had tumors that was detected. The bottom and top of each box represent the first and third quartiles, respectively. The band shows the median of each group. Outliers were defined as values beyond the 1.5-fold interquartile range (bars) and are marked with an asterisk. The difference between groups was calculated using the Mann-Whitney U-test.

In our series reported here, we were able to detect areas highly suspicious for local recurrence at PSA values below 0.5 ng/ml at a minimum level of 0.31 ng/ml, indicating that some tumors in patients with a PSA value of 0.2-0.5 ng/ml can be detected by our method. We were not able to detect any local recurrence in patients with a PSA level below 0.3 ng/ml and we failed to identify local relapse in three patients with PSA levels of 0.2 ng/ml and greater (0.209, 0.33, and 0.71 ng/ml), although these patients responded to local therapy, indicating that local relapse not visible by MRI was present.

Recent literature on the topic shows that local recurrence was detected in larger series at a PSA level of around 0.8-1.3 ng/ml (45, 46). Cirillo and coworkers estimated sensitivity of 84% and specificity of 89% in patients with a PSA level of ~1.2 ng/ml (35). The authors were not able to detect local recurrence in patients with PSA values below 0.45 ng/ml with 1.5-T MRI. These results concur with those provided by Silverman and coworkers, who reported the range where recurrent disease was suspected to be 0.4-11 ng/ml (38). Three studies reported that detection of local failure may be possible in patients with a PSA level below 0.4 ng/ml but one study was performed under systemic treatment for prostate cancer (37), therefore the results do not apply to the typical situation in which salvage radiation therapy is initiated. Rischke et al. were able to detect suspicious lesions in 66% of patients with a median PSA level of 0.51 ng/ml (range=0.11-2.38 ng/ml; 1.5-T MRI) (36). Another small series was reported by Roy et al., who estimated a sensitivity of 97% using T2-weighted MRI plus DCE-MRI (mean PSA=0.98 ng/ml, range=0.3-2.8 ng/ml) (47). Taken together, evidence on early detection of recurrence after radical prostatectomy at a PSA level below 0.5 ng/ml is inconsistent. Our data are in line with the studies performed with 1.5-T MRI, indicating that improvements by 3-T MRI are not sufficient for an earlier detection of local recurrence. Additionally, our data showed an association between PSA level and PF, but not with MTT. These observations must be confirmed in larger series. It has been shown that PF is a marker for angiogenesis (48); however, larger studies are needed to show if its quantification has a clinical or prognostic significance.

The weakness of this study is its small sample size. Additionally, as in most other studies on this issue, local recurrence was not confirmed by biopsy, only by treatment outcome (in terms of PSA response). It was not possible to improve detection cut-off compared to the best reported results using 1.5-T MRI with our approach. Reported studies on the subject are not yet sufficient to estimate the sensitivity and specificity in patients with a PSA level below 0.5 ng/ml. Potentially, the ongoing MRI-Mapped Dose-Escalated Salvage Radiotherapy Post-Prostatectomy-trial (49) will provide further insight. Furthermore, contrast agents such as superparamagnetic iron oxides (50) may lower detection limits in future studies.

Conclusion

Detection of gross recurrence by MRI of the prostatic fossa might improve tumor control if radiation doses could be escalated without compromising side-effect profiles. Our data indicate that high field strength alone is not sufficient to reliably detect recurrence in the prostatic fossa at PSA values below 0.5 ng/ml. This is in line with most published studies reporting on 1.5-T MRI application and indicates an unmet need for better imaging of the prostatic fossa after radical prostatectomy.

Footnotes

  • This article is freely accessible online.

  • Declarations

    Ethics approval and consent to participate: The study was approved by the ethics committee of Heidelberg University, Medical Faculty Mannheim (2008-338N-MA). Written informed consent for study participation was obtained from all patients.

    Availability of data and material: The dataset generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

  • Funding

    None.

  • Consent for Publication

    All patients gave their written informed consent on anonymized publication of individual patient data.

  • Conflicts of Interest

    DB reports personal fees from Siemens AG, personal fees from NB Capital Research GmbH, personal fees from NB Capital ApS, outside the submitted work.

    FL reports grants and personal fees from Elekta AB, grants and personal fees from IBA, personal fees from C-RAD, during the conduct of the study.

    FW reports grants and personal fees from Elekta, during the conduct of the study.

    SOS reports the department of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Mannheim has research agreements with Siemens Healthineers

    UIA, M Sertdemir, AW and M Shelan have nothing to disclose.

  • Received October 14, 2017.
  • Revision received November 7, 2017.
  • Accepted November 10, 2017.
  • Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by the International Institute of Anticancer Research.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Ferlay J,
    2. Shin HR,
    3. Bray F,
    4. Forman D,
    5. Mathers C,
    6. Parkin DM
    : Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: Globocan 2008. Int J Cancer 127(12): 2893-2917, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Center MM,
    2. Jemal A,
    3. Lortet-Tieulent J,
    4. Ward E,
    5. Ferlay J,
    6. Brawley O,
    7. Bray F
    : International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol 61(6): 1079-1092, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Brawley OW
    : Prostate cancer epidemiology in the United States. World J Urol 30(2): 195-200, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Schymura MJ,
    2. Kahn AR,
    3. German RR,
    4. Hsieh MC,
    5. Cress RD,
    6. Finch JL,
    7. Fulton JP,
    8. Shen T,
    9. Stuckart E
    : Factors associated with initial treatment and survival for clinically localized prostate cancer: Results from the CDC-NPCR patterns of care study (POC1). BMC Cancer 10: 152, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Cooperberg MR,
    2. Broering JM,
    3. Carroll PR
    : Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 28(7): 1117-1123, 2010.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Herman CM,
    2. Kattan MW,
    3. Ohori M,
    4. Scardino PT,
    5. Wheeler TM
    : Primary Gleason pattern as a predictor of disease progression in gleason score 7 prostate cancer: A multivariate analysis of 823 men treated with radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol 25(5): 657-660, 2001.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Chan TY,
    2. Partin AW,
    3. Walsh PC,
    4. Epstein JI
    : Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology 56(5): 823-827, 2000.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Mitsuzuka K,
    2. Narita S,
    3. Koie T,
    4. Kaiho Y,
    5. Tsuchiya N,
    6. Yoneyama T,
    7. Kakoi N,
    8. Kawamura S,
    9. Tochigi T,
    10. Habuchi T,
    11. Ohyama C,
    12. Arai Y
    : Pathological and biochemical outcomes after radical prostatectomy in men with low-risk prostate cancer meeting the prostate cancer international: Active surveillance criteria. BJU Int 111(6): 914-920, 2013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Simon MA,
    2. Kim S,
    3. Soloway MS
    : Prostate specific antigen recurrence rates are low after radical retropubic prostatectomy and positive margins. J Urol 175(1): 140-144; discussion 144-145, 2006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Stephenson AJ,
    2. Wood DP,
    3. Kattan MW,
    4. Klein EA,
    5. Scardino PT,
    6. Eastham JA,
    7. Carver BS
    : Location, extent and number of positive surgical margins do not improve accuracy of predicting prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 182(4): 1357-1363, 2009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Swanson GP,
    2. Hussey MA,
    3. Tangen CM,
    4. Chin J,
    5. Messing E,
    6. Canby-Hagino E,
    7. Forman JD,
    8. Thompson IM,
    9. Crawford ED,
    10. SWOG
    : Predominant treatment failure in postprostatectomy patients is local: Analysis of patterns of treatment failure in SWOG 8794. J Clin Oncol 25(16): 2225-2229, 2007.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Bolla M,
    2. van Poppel H,
    3. Tombal B,
    4. Vekemans K,
    5. Da Pozzo L,
    6. de Reijke TM,
    7. Verbaeys A,
    8. Bosset JF,
    9. van Velthoven R,
    10. Colombel M,
    11. van de Beek C,
    12. Verhagen P,
    13. van den Bergh A,
    14. Sternberg C,
    15. Gasser T,
    16. van Tienhoven G,
    17. Scalliet P,
    18. Haustermans K,
    19. Collette L,
    20. European Organisation for R, Treatment of Cancer RO and Genito-Urinary G
    : Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: Long-term results of a randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911). Lancet 380(9858): 2018-2027, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Daly T,
    2. Hickey BE,
    3. Lehman M,
    4. Francis DP,
    5. See AM
    : Adjuvant radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12: CD007234, 2011.
  13. ↵
    1. Stephenson AJ,
    2. Scardino PT,
    3. Kattan MW,
    4. Pisansky TM,
    5. Slawin KM,
    6. Klein EA,
    7. Anscher MS,
    8. Michalski JM,
    9. Sandler HM,
    10. Lin DW,
    11. Forman JD,
    12. Zelefsky MJ,
    13. Kestin LL,
    14. Roehrborn CG,
    15. Catton CN,
    16. DeWeese TL,
    17. Liauw SL,
    18. Valicenti RK,
    19. Kuban DA,
    20. Pollack A
    : Predicting the outcome of salvage radiation therapy for recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 25(15): 2035-2041, 2007.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Stish BJ,
    2. Pisansky TM,
    3. Harmsen WS,
    4. Davis BJ,
    5. Tzou KS,
    6. Choo R,
    7. Buskirk SJ
    : Improved metastasis-free and survival outcomes with early salvage radiotherapy in men with detectable prostate-specific antigen after prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 34(32): 3864-3871, 2016.
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Tendulkar RD,
    2. Agrawal S,
    3. Gao T,
    4. Efstathiou JA,
    5. Pisansky TM,
    6. Michalski JM,
    7. Koontz BF,
    8. Hamstra DA,
    9. Feng FY,
    10. Liauw SL,
    11. Abramowitz MC,
    12. Pollack A,
    13. Anscher MS,
    14. Moghanaki D,
    15. Den RB,
    16. Stephans KL,
    17. Zietman AL,
    18. Lee WR,
    19. Kattan MW,
    20. Stephenson AJ
    : Contemporary update of a multi-institutional predictive nomogram for salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 34(30): 3648-3654, 2016.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Valicenti RK,
    2. Thompson I Jr..,
    3. Albertsen P,
    4. Davis BJ,
    5. Goldenberg SL,
    6. Wolf JS,
    7. Sartor O,
    8. Klein E,
    9. Hahn C,
    10. Michalski J,
    11. Roach M 3rd.,
    12. Faraday MM,
    13. American Society for Radiation Oncology/American Urological A
    : Adjuvant and salvage radiation therapy after prostatectomy: American Society for Radiation Oncology/American Urological Association guidelines. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 86(5): 822-828, 2013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Shelan M,
    2. Abo-Madyan Y,
    3. Welzel G,
    4. Bolenz C,
    5. Kosakowski J,
    6. Behnam N,
    7. Wenz F,
    8. Lohr F
    : Dose-escalated salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy in high risk prostate cancer patients without hormone therapy: Outcome, prognostic factors and late toxicity. Radiat Oncol 8: 276, 2013.
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guideline) – Prostate Cancer [www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp#site]
  19. ↵
    1. Heidenreich A,
    2. Bastian PJ,
    3. Bellmunt J,
    4. Bolla M,
    5. Joniau S,
    6. van der Kwast T,
    7. Mason M,
    8. Matveev V,
    9. Wiegel T,
    10. Zattoni F,
    11. Mottet N
    : EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part ii: Treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 65(2): 467-479, 2014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Connolly JA,
    2. Shinohara K,
    3. Presti JC Jr..,
    4. Carroll PR
    : Local recurrence after radical prostatectomy: Characteristics in size, location, and relationship to prostate-specific antigen and surgical margins. Urology 47(2): 225-231, 1996.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Scattoni V,
    2. Roscigno M,
    3. Raber M,
    4. Montorsi F,
    5. Da Pozzo L,
    6. Guazzoni G,
    7. Freschi M,
    8. Rigatti P
    : Multiple vesico-urethral biopsies following radical prostatectomy: The predictive roles of TRUS, DRE, PSA and the pathological stage. Eur Urol 44(4): 407-414, 2003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Nguyen DP,
    2. Giannarini G,
    3. Seiler R,
    4. Schiller R,
    5. Thoeny HC,
    6. Thalmann GN,
    7. Studer UE
    : Local recurrence after retropubic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer does not exclusively occur at the anastomotic site. BJU Int 112(4): E243-249, 2013.
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. Poortmans P,
    2. Bossi A,
    3. Vandeputte K,
    4. Bosset M,
    5. Miralbell R,
    6. Maingon P,
    7. Boehmer D,
    8. Budiharto T,
    9. Symon Z,
    10. van den Bergh AC,
    11. Scrase C,
    12. Van Poppel H,
    13. Bolla M,
    14. Group ERO
    : Guidelines for target volume definition in post-operative radiotherapy for prostate cancer, on behalf of the EORTC Radiation Oncology Group. Radiother Oncol 84(2): 121-127, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Michalski JM,
    2. Lawton C,
    3. El Naqa I,
    4. Ritter M,
    5. O'Meara E,
    6. Seider MJ,
    7. Lee WR,
    8. Rosenthal SA,
    9. Pisansky T,
    10. Catton C,
    11. Valicenti RK,
    12. Zietman AL,
    13. Bosch WR,
    14. Sandler H,
    15. Buyyounouski MK,
    16. Menard C
    : Development of RTOG consensus guidelines for the definition of the clinical target volume for postoperative conformal radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 76(2): 361-368, 2010.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Sidhom MA,
    2. Kneebone AB,
    3. Lehman M,
    4. Wiltshire KL,
    5. Millar JL,
    6. Mukherjee RK,
    7. Shakespeare TP,
    8. Tai KH
    : Post-prostatectomy radiation therapy: Consensus guidelines of the Australian and New Zealand Radiation Oncology Genito-Urinary Group. Radiother Oncol 88(1): 10-19, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Wiltshire KL,
    2. Brock KK,
    3. Haider MA,
    4. Zwahlen D,
    5. Kong V,
    6. Chan E,
    7. Moseley J,
    8. Bayley A,
    9. Catton C,
    10. Chung PW,
    11. Gospodarowicz M,
    12. Milosevic M,
    13. Kneebone A,
    14. Warde P,
    15. Menard C
    : Anatomic boundaries of the clinical target volume (prostate bed) after radical prostatectomy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 69(4): 1090-1099, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Croke J,
    2. Malone S,
    3. Roustan Delatour N,
    4. Belanger E,
    5. Avruch L,
    6. Morash C,
    7. Kayser C,
    8. Underhill K,
    9. Spaans J
    : Postoperative radiotherapy in prostate cancer: The case of the missing target. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 83(4): 1160-1168, 2012.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Malone S,
    2. Croke J,
    3. Roustan-Delatour N,
    4. Belanger E,
    5. Avruch L,
    6. Malone C,
    7. Morash C,
    8. Kayser C,
    9. Underhill K,
    10. Li Y,
    11. Malone K,
    12. Nyiri B,
    13. Spaans J
    : Postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: A comparison of four consensus guidelines and dosimetric evaluation of 3D-CRT versus tomotherapy IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 84(3): 725-732, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Jackson A,
    2. Marks LB,
    3. Bentzen SM,
    4. Eisbruch A,
    5. Yorke ED,
    6. Ten Haken RK,
    7. Constine LS,
    8. Deasy JO
    : The lessons of QUANTEC: Recommendations for reporting and gathering data on dose-volume dependencies of treatment outcome. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 76(3 Suppl): S155-160, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Parker C,
    2. Sydes MR,
    3. Catton C,
    4. Kynaston H,
    5. Logue J,
    6. Murphy C,
    7. Morgan RC,
    8. Mellon K,
    9. Morash C,
    10. Parulekar W,
    11. Parmar MK,
    12. Payne H,
    13. Savage C,
    14. Stansfeld J,
    15. Clarke NW
    : Radiotherapy and androgen deprivation in combination after local surgery (radicals): A new Medical Research Council/National Cancer Institute of Canada phase III trial of adjuvant treatment after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 99(6): 1376-1379, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Umbehr MH,
    2. Muntener M,
    3. Hany T,
    4. Sulser T,
    5. Bachmann LM
    : The role of 11c-choline and 18f-fluorocholine positron emission tomography (PET) and PET/CT in prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 64(1): 106-117, 2013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Sciarra A,
    2. Panebianco V,
    3. Salciccia S,
    4. Osimani M,
    5. Lisi D,
    6. Ciccariello M,
    7. Passariello R,
    8. Di Silverio F,
    9. Gentile V
    : Role of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and proton mr spectroscopic imaging in the detection of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 54(3): 589-600, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Casciani E,
    2. Polettini E,
    3. Carmenini E,
    4. Floriani I,
    5. Masselli G,
    6. Bertini L,
    7. Gualdi GF
    : Endorectal and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for detection of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Am J Roentgenol 190(5): 1187-1192, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Cirillo S,
    2. Petracchini M,
    3. Scotti L,
    4. Gallo T,
    5. Macera A,
    6. Bona MC,
    7. Ortega C,
    8. Gabriele P,
    9. Regge D
    : Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 Tesla to assess local recurrence following radical prostatectomy using T2-weighted and contrast-enhanced imaging. Eur Radiol 19(3): 761-769, 2009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Rischke HC,
    2. Schafer AO,
    3. Nestle U,
    4. Volegova-Neher N,
    5. Henne K,
    6. Benz MR,
    7. Schultze-Seemann W,
    8. Langer M,
    9. Grosu AL
    : Detection of local recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy in terms of salvage radiotherapy using dynamic contrast enhanced-mri without endorectal coil. Radiat Oncol 7: 185, 2012.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Sella T,
    2. Schwartz LH,
    3. Swindle PW,
    4. Onyebuchi CN,
    5. Scardino PT,
    6. Scher HI,
    7. Hricak H
    : Suspected local recurrence after radical prostatectomy: Endorectal coil mr imaging. Radiology 231(2): 379-385, 2004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Silverman JM,
    2. Krebs TL
    : Mr imaging evaluation with a transrectal surface coil of local recurrence of prostatic cancer in men who have undergone radical prostatectomy. Am J Roentgenol 168(2): 379-385, 1997.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. King CR
    : The timing of salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: A systematic review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 84(1): 104-111, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Sourbron S,
    2. Dujardin M,
    3. Makkat S,
    4. Luypaert R
    : Pixel-by-pixel deconvolution of bolus-tracking data: Optimization and implementation. Phys Med Biol 52(2): 429-447, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Dujardin M,
    2. Sourbron S,
    3. Luypaert R,
    4. Verbeelen D,
    5. Stadnik T
    : Quantification of renal perfusion and function on a voxel-by-voxel basis: A feasibility study. Magn Reson Med 54(4): 841-849, 2005.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Sourbron SP,
    2. Michaely HJ,
    3. Reiser MF,
    4. Schoenberg SO
    : aMRI-measurement of perfusion and glomerular filtration in the human kidney with a separable compartment model. Invest Radiol 43(1): 40-48, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Zollner FG,
    2. Weisser G,
    3. Reich M,
    4. Kaiser S,
    5. Schoenberg SO,
    6. Sourbron SP,
    7. Schad LR
    : UMMPerfusion: An open source software tool towards quantitative MRI perfusion analysis in clinical routine. J Digit Imaging 26(2): 344-352, 2013.
    OpenUrl
  41. ↵
    1. Hricak H,
    2. Choyke PL,
    3. Eberhardt SC,
    4. Leibel SA,
    5. Scardino PT
    : Imaging prostate cancer: A multidisciplinary perspective. Radiology 243(1): 28-53, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Panebianco V,
    2. Barchetti F,
    3. Sciarra A,
    4. Musio D,
    5. Forte V,
    6. Gentile V,
    7. Tombolini V,
    8. Catalano C
    : Prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy: The role of 3-T diffusion imaging in multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 23(6): 1745-1752, 2013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Alfarone A,
    2. Panebianco V,
    3. Schillaci O,
    4. Salciccia S,
    5. Cattarino S,
    6. Mariotti G,
    7. Gentilucci A,
    8. Von Heland M,
    9. Passariello R,
    10. Gentile V,
    11. Sciarra A
    : Comparative analysis of multiparametric magnetic resonance and PET-CT in the management of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 84(1): 109-121, 2012.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Roy C,
    2. Foudi F,
    3. Charton J,
    4. Jung M,
    5. Lang H,
    6. Saussine C,
    7. Jacqmin D
    : Comparative sensitivities of functional MRI sequences in detection of local recurrence of prostate carcinoma after radical prostatectomy or external-beam radiotherapy. Am J Roentgenol 200(4): W361-368, 2013.
    OpenUrl
  45. ↵
    1. Oostendorp M,
    2. Post MJ,
    3. Backes WH
    : Vessel growth and function: Depiction with contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 251(2): 317-335, 2009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    A phase III randomized trial of MRI-mapped dose-escalated salvage radiotherapy post-prostatectomy: The MAPS Trial (MAPS); NCT 01411345; [https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01411345]
  47. ↵
    1. Fortuin AS,
    2. Bruggemann R,
    3. van der Linden J,
    4. Panfilov I,
    5. Israel B,
    6. Scheenen TW,
    7. Barentsz JO
    : Ultra-small superpara-magnetic iron oxides for metastatic lymph node detection: Back on the block. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol, 2017. doi: 10.1002/wnan.1471. [Epub ahead of print]
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

In Vivo
Vol. 32, Issue 1
January-February 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on In Vivo.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Detection of Local Recurrence with 3-Tesla MRI After Radical Prostatectomy: A Useful Method for Radiation Treatment Planning?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from In Vivo
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the In Vivo web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
2 + 6 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Detection of Local Recurrence with 3-Tesla MRI After Radical Prostatectomy: A Useful Method for Radiation Treatment Planning?
DANIEL BUERGY, METIN SERTDEMIR, ANJA WEIDNER, MOHAMED SHELAN, FRANK LOHR, FREDERIK WENZ, STEFAN O. SCHOENBERG, ULRIKE I. ATTENBERGER
In Vivo Jan 2018, 32 (1) 125-131;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Detection of Local Recurrence with 3-Tesla MRI After Radical Prostatectomy: A Useful Method for Radiation Treatment Planning?
DANIEL BUERGY, METIN SERTDEMIR, ANJA WEIDNER, MOHAMED SHELAN, FRANK LOHR, FREDERIK WENZ, STEFAN O. SCHOENBERG, ULRIKE I. ATTENBERGER
In Vivo Jan 2018, 32 (1) 125-131;
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

  • Long-term Follow-up Results of CT-guided Daily Adaptive Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • NLRP3 and RANK-RANKL-OPG Pathway-related Gene Expression Levels in Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder
  • Stable “Salivary Viral Road Ratios” in Individuals Infected With Omicron Variants
  • HLA Class I Loss and Resistance to Immunotherapy in Pulmonary Metastasis of Hypopharyngeal Cancer
Show more Clinical Studies

Keywords

  • Prostate carcinoma
  • radiation therapy
  • salvage treatment
  • radical prostatectomy
  • MRI
In Vivo

© 2026 In Vivo

Powered by HighWire