Comparative role of radiological imaging methods in biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer

Cover Image

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer following radical treatment, including radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy, occurs in approximately 25%–50% of patients. However, the clinical course and prognosis of the disease vary among patients and depend on several factors. Consequently, the optimal diagnostic and treatment methods for patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer remains debatable. Biochemical recurrence may be caused by local recurrence, metastatic dissemination, or a combination of these processes. Recently, approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer have undergone significant changes with the introduction of more accurate diagnostic methods. This article provides a review of the current capabilities of radiological imaging and radionuclide diagnostic methods in visualizing local recurrence and metastases in patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer.

About the authors

Tatiana M. Rostovtseva

Federal Center of Brain Research and Neurotechnologies; Lomonosov Moscow State University

Email: rostovtsevat@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6541-179X
SPIN-code: 5840-7590
Russian Federation, Moscow; Moscow

Mikhail B. Dolgushin

Federal Center of Brain Research and Neurotechnologies

Email: dolgushin.m@fccps.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3930-5998
SPIN-code: 6388-9644

MD, Dr. Sci. (Medicine), Professor, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Russian Federation, Moscow

Mariya A. Karalkina

Federal Center of Brain Research and Neurotechnologies

Email: karalkina.m@fccps.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9267-3602
SPIN-code: 9812-0420

MD, Cand. Sci. (Medicine)

Russian Federation, Moscow

Olga A. Koroid

Medicine and Nuclear Technologies

Email: olga_koroid@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0004-6494-8017
SPIN-code: 1400-5957

MD, Cand. Sci. (Medicine)

Russian Federation, Moscow

Valentin E. Sinitsyn

Lomonosov Moscow State University

Author for correspondence.
Email: vsini@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5649-2193
SPIN-code: 8449-6590

MD, Dr. Sci. (Medicine), Professor

Russian Federation, Moscow

References

  1. Kaprin AD, Starinsky VV, Shakhzadova AO, editors. Malignant neoplasms in Russia in 2021 (morbidity and mortality). Moscow: P. Herzen MORI — the branch of the FSBI NMRRC of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 2022. (In Russ).
  2. Suardi N, Porter CR, Reuther AM, et al. A nomogram predicting long-term biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2008;112(6):1254–1263. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23293
  3. Cookson MS, Aus G, Burnett AL, et al. Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American Urological Association prostate guidelines for localized prostate cancer update panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes. J Urol. 2007;177(2):540–545. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.10.097
  4. Bianco FJ Jr, Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Radical prostatectomy: long-term cancer control and recovery of sexual and urinary function ("trifecta"). Urology. 2005;66 Suppl. 5:83–94. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.06.116
  5. Eggener SE, Scardino PT, Walsh PC, et al. Predicting 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2011;185(3):869–875. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.10.057
  6. Bolla M, van Poppel H, Tombal B, et al.; European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Radiation Oncology and Genito-Urinary Groups. Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: long-term results of a randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911). Lancet. 2012;380(9858): 2018–2027. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61253-7
  7. Freedland SJ, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, et al. Risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality following biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 2005;294(4): 433–439. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.4.433
  8. Van den Broeck T, van den Bergh RCN, Arfi N, et al. Prognostic value of biochemical recurrence following treatment with curative intent for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2019;75(6):967–987. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.10.011 EDN: QVRVNR
  9. Roach M 3rd, Hanks G, Thames H Jr, et al. Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65(4):965–974. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.04.029
  10. Roberts WB, Han M. Clinical significance and treatment of biochemical recurrence after definitive therapy for localized prostate cancer. Surg Oncol. 2009;18(3):268–274. doi: 10.1016/j.suronc.2009.02.004
  11. Pound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, et al. Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 1999;281(17):1591–1597. doi: 10.1001/jama.281.17.1591
  12. Zagars GK, Pollack A. Kinetics of serum prostate-specific antigen after external beam radiation for clinically localized prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol. 1997;44(3):213–221. doi: 10.1016/s0167-8140(97)00123-0 EDN: AIKIJT
  13. Jhaveri FM, Klein EA. How to explore the patient with a rising PSA after radical prostatectomy: defining local versus systemic failure. Semin Urol Oncol. 1999;17(3):130–134.
  14. Yossepowitch O, Briganti A, Eastham JA, et al. Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and contemporary update. European urology. 2014;65(2):303–313. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.07.039
  15. Patel A, Dorey F, Franklin J, deKernion JB. Recurrence patterns after radical retropubic prostatectomy: clinical usefulness of prostate specific antigen doubling times and log slope prostate specific antigen. The Journal of urology. 1997;158(4):1441–1445. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(01)64238-1
  16. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71(4):618–629. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.003 EDN: YUXBLF
  17. Tilki D, Preisser F, Graefen M, et al. External validation of the European Association of Urology biochemical recurrence risk groups to predict metastasis and mortality after radical prostatectomy in a European cohort. Eur Urol. 2019;75(6):896–900. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.03.016
  18. Morgan TM, Boorjian SA, Buyyounouski MK, et al. Salvage therapy for prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO guideline part I: introduction and treatment decision-making at the time of suspected biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2024;211(4):509–517. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000003892 EDN: ONOLYZ
  19. Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer-2020 update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2021;79(2):243–262. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042 EDN: ESJJKR
  20. Zaorsky NG, Calais J, Fanti S, et al. Salvage therapy for prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Nat Rev Urol. 2021;18(11):643–668. doi: 10.1038/s41585-021-00497-7 EDN: CIPPVD
  21. Stish BJ, Pisansky TM, Harmsen WS, et al. Improved metastasis-free and survival outcomes with early salvage radiotherapy in men with detectable prostate-specific antigen after prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Journal of clinical oncology. 2016;34(32):3864–3871. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.68.3425
  22. Abugharib A, Jackson WC, Tumati V, et al. Very early salvage radiotherapy improves distant metastasis-free survival. The Journal of urology. 2017;197(3 Pt 1):662–668. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.08.106
  23. Pisansky TM, Agrawal S, Hamstra DA, et al. Salvage radiation therapy dose response for biochemical failure of prostate cancer after prostatectomy — A multi-institutional observational study. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 2016;96(5):1046–1053. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.08.043
  24. Boorjian SA, Karnes RJ, Crispen PL, et al. Radiation therapy after radical prostatectomy: impact on metastasis and survival. J Urol. 2009;182(6):2708–2714. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.08.027
  25. Parker CC, Clarke NW, Cook AD, et al. Timing of radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy (RADICALS-RT): a randomised, controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2020;396(10260):1413–1421. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31553-1 EDN: WJNRRN
  26. Wiegel T, Lohm G, Bottke D, et al. Achieving an undetectable PSA after radiotherapy for biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy is an independent predictor of biochemical outcome-results of a retrospective study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;73(4):1009–1016. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.06.1922
  27. Trock BJ, Han M, Freedland SJ, et al. Prostate cancer-specific survival following salvage radiotherapy vs observation in men with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 2008;299(23):2760–2769. doi: 10.1001/jama.299.23.2760 EDN: MLCBHB
  28. Valle LF, Lehrer EJ, Markovic D, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of local salvage therapies after radiotherapy for prostate cancer (MASTER). Eur Urol. 2021;80(3)280–292. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.11.010 EDN: EZFEBO
  29. Beresford MJ, Gillatt D, Benson RJ, Ajithkumar T. A systematic review of the role of imaging before salvage radiotherapy for post-prostatectomy biochemical recurrence. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2010. Vol. 22, N. 1. P. 46–55. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2009.10.015
  30. Abuzallouf S, Dayes I, Lukka H. Baseline staging of newly diagnosed prostate cancer: a summary of the literature. J Urol. 2004;171(6 Pt 1):2122–2127. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000123981.03084.06
  31. O'Sullivan GJ, Carty FL, Cronin CG. Imaging of bone metastasis: an update. World J Radiol. 2015;7(8):202–211. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v7.i8.202
  32. Kane CJ, Amling CL, Johnstone PA, et al. Limited value of bone scintigraphy and computed tomography in assessing biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2003;61(3):607–611. doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(02)02411-1
  33. Gabriele D, Collura D, Oderda M, et al. Is there still a role for computed tomography and bone scintigraphy in prostate cancer staging? An analysis from the EUREKA-1 database. World J Urol. 2016;34(4):517–523. doi: 10.1007/s00345-015-1669-2 EDN: WUPIZJ
  34. Krause BJ, Souvatzoglou M, Tuncel M, et al. The detection rate of [11C]Choline-PET/CT depends on the serum PSA-value in patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35(1):18–23. doi: 10.1007/s00259-007-0581-4 EDN: DRDVCM
  35. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol. 2019;76(3):340–351. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
  36. Cirillo S, Petracchini M, Scotti L, et al. Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 Tesla to assess local recurrence following radical prostatectomy using T2-weighted and contrast-enhanced imaging. Eur Radiol. 2009;19(3):761–769. doi: 10.1007/s00330-008-1174-8 EDN: ZGZGFV
  37. Hernandez D, Salas D, Giménez D, et al. Pelvic MRI findings in relapsed prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Radiat Oncol. 2015;10:262. doi: 10.1186/s13014-015-0574-6 EDN: XDYQIJ
  38. Kwon T, Kim JK, Lee C, et al. Discrimination of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy: value of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Prostate Int. 2018;6(1):12–17. doi: 10.1016/j.prnil.2017.05.002 EDN: YCZHET
  39. Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Sciarra A, et al. Prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy: the role of 3-T diffusion imaging in multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(6):1745–1752. doi: 10.1007/s00330-013-2768-3 EDN: WABISI
  40. Breen WG, Stish BJ, Harmsen WS, et al. The prognostic value, sensitivity, and specificity of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging before salvage radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2021;161:9–15. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.05.015 EDN: AXVJZF
  41. Dirix P, van Walle L, Deckers F, et al. Proposal for magnetic resonance imaging-guided salvage radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Acta Oncol. 2017;56(1):27–32. doi: 10.1080/0284186X.2016.1223342 EDN: YWOCNJ
  42. Renard-Penna R, Zhang-Yin J, Montagne S, et al. Targeting local recurrence after surgery with MRI imaging for prostate cancer in the setting of salvage radiation therapy. Front Oncol. 2022;12:775387. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.775387 EDN: FQGODQ
  43. Hofman MS, Lawrentschuk N, Francis RJ, et al.; proPSMA Study Group Collaborators. Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy (proPSMA): a prospective, randomised, multicentre study. Lancet. 2020;395(10231):1208–1216. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30314-7 EDN: IDQIFB
  44. Buergy D, Sertdemir M, Weidner A, et al. Detection of local recurrence with 3-Tesla MRI after radical prostatectomy: a useful method for radiation treatment planning? In Vivo. 2018;32(1):125–131. doi: 10.21873/invivo.11214 EDN: YEIKJV
  45. Sharma V, Nehra A, Colicchia M, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging is an independent predictor of salvage radiotherapy outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2018;73(6):879–887. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.11.012
  46. Hövels AM, Heesakkers RA, Adang EM, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol. 2008;63(4):387–395. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2007.05.022
  47. Toussi A, Stewart-Merrill SB, Boorjian SA, et al. Standardizing the definition of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy-what prostate specific antigen cut point best predicts a durable increase and subsequent systemic progression? J Urol. 2016;195(6):1754–1759. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.075 EDN: WPXQUN
  48. Luboldt W, Küfer R, Blumstein N, et al. Prostate carcinoma: diffusion-weighted imaging as potential alternative to conventional MR and 11C-choline PET/CT for detection of bone metastases. Radiology. 2008;249(3):1017–1025. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2492080038
  49. Van Nieuwenhove S, Van Damme J, Padhani AR, et al. Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer assessment: current status and future directions. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2022;55(3):653–680. doi: 10.1002/jmri.27485
  50. Nakanishi K, Tanaka J, Nakaya Y, et al. Whole-body MRI: detecting bone metastases from prostate cancer. Jpn J Radiol. 2022;40(3):229–244. doi: 10.1007/s11604-021-01205-6 EDN: QZBDSB
  51. Deliveliotis C, Manousakas T, Chrisofos M, et al. Diagnostic efficacy of transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostatic fossa in patients with rising PSA following radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2007;25(3):309–313. doi: 10.1007/s00345-007-0167-6 EDN: JCMCNS
  52. Maurer T, Gschwend JE, Rauscher I, et al. Diagnostic efficacy of (68)Gallium-PSMA positron emission tomography compared to conventional imaging for lymph node staging of 130 consecutive patients with intermediate to high risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2016;195(5):1436–1443. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.025
  53. de Galiza Barbosa F, Queiroz MA, Nunes RF, et al. Nonprostatic diseases on PSMA PET imaging: a spectrum of benign and malignant findings. Cancer Imaging. 2020;20(1):23. doi: 10.1186/s40644-020-00300-7 EDN: TKHPXT
  54. Jadvar H, Calais J, Fanti S, et al. Appropriate Use Criteria for Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen PET Imaging. J Nucl Med. 2022;63(1):59–68. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.121.263262 EDN: PBEQSJ
  55. Rahbar K, Weckesser M, Ahmadzadehfar H, et al. Advantage of 18F-PSMA-1007 over 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET imaging for differentiation of local recurrence vs. urinary tracer excretion. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45(6):1076–1077. doi: 10.1007/s00259-018-3952-0 EDN: SGKOZF
  56. Behr SC, Aggarwal R, Van Brocklin HF, et al. Phase I study of CTT1057, an 18F-labeled imaging agent with phosphoramidate core targeting prostate-specific membrane antigen in prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2019;60(7):910–916. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.118.220715 2018
  57. Duan H, Song H, Davidzon GA, et al. Prospective comparison of 68Ga-NeoB and 68Ga-PSMA-R2 PET/MRI in patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2024;65(6):897–903. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.123.267017 EDN: GUNGVG
  58. PROPELLER trial results – SAR-bisPSMA safe, well tolerated and efficacious in the detection of prostate cancer; [about 3 screens]. In: Clarity Pharmaceuticals [Internet]. Eveleigh: National Innovation Centre, 2023–2024 [cited 2024 Dec 19]. Available from: https://www.claritypharmaceuticals.com/news/propeller_results/
  59. Nielsen JB, Zacho HD, Haberkorn U, et al. A comprehensive safety evaluation of 68Ga-Labeled ligand prostate-specific membrane antigen 11 PET/CT in prostate cancer: the results of 2 rospective, multicenter trials. Clin Nucl Med. 2017;42(7):520–524. doi: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000001681
  60. Sanchez-Crespo A. Comparison of Gallium-68 and Fluorine-18 imaging characteristics in positron emission tomography. Appl Radiat Isot. 2013;76:55–62. doi: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2012.06.034
  61. Dietlein M, Kobe C, Kuhnert G, et al. Comparison of [(18)F]DCFPyL and [(68)Ga]Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC for PSMA-PET imaging in patients with relapsed prostate cancer. Mol Imaging Biol. 2015;17(4):575–584. doi: 10.1007/s11307-015-0866-0 EDN: NUSIQH
  62. Dietlein F, Kobe C, Neubauer S, et al. PSA-Stratified Performance of 18F- and 68Ga-PSMA PET in patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2017;58(6):947–952. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.116.185538
  63. Kim JH, Lee JS, Kim JS, et al. Physical performance comparison of Ga-68 and F-18 in small animal PET system. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1423.
  64. Rohith G. VISION trial: 177Lu-PSMA-617 for progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Indian J Urol. 2021;37(4):372–373. doi: 10.4103/iju.iju_292_21 EDN: YAFNKB
  65. Fendler WP, Calais J, Eiber M, et al. Assessment of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET accuracy in localizing recurrent prostate cancer: a prospective single-arm clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(6):856–863. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0096
  66. Boreta L, Gadzinski AJ, Wu SY, et al. Location of recurrence by Gallium-68 PSMA-11 PET scan in prostate cancer patients eligible for salvage radiotherapy. Urology. 2019;129:165–171. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.12.055
  67. Calais J, Czernin J, Cao M, et al. 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT mapping of prostate cancer biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in 270 patients with a PSA level of less than 1.0 ng/mL: impact on salvage radiotherapy planning. J Nucl Med. 2018;59(2):230–237. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.117.201749
  68. Ignatova MV, Tlostanova MS, Stranzhevsky AA. The first experience of performing combined positronemission with computed tomography with prostate-specific membrane antigen labeled with gallium-68 in patients with minimal level of prostate-specific antigen after radical prostatectomy. Problems in oncology. 2018;64(4):508–514. doi: 10.37469/0507-3758-2018-64-4-508-514 EDN: YMJZRB
  69. Sawicki LM, Kirchner J, Buddensieck C, et al. Prospective comparison of whole-body MRI and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT for the detection of biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46(7):1542–1550. doi: 10.1007/s00259-019-04308-5 EDN: OQFCIB
  70. Meshcheriakova NA, Dolgushin MB, Pronin AI, et al. 18F-PSMA-1007 and 18F-fluorocholine PET/CT in prostate cancer progression diagnostics. First comparative experience. Cancer Urology. 2019;15(3):70–76. doi: 10.17650/1726-9776-2019-15-3-70-76 EDN: ZZTJTZ
  71. Rouvière O, Vitry T, Lyonnet D. Imaging of prostate cancer local recurrences: why and how? Eur Radiol. 2010;20(5):1254–1266. doi: 10.1007/s00330-009-1647-4
  72. Liu W, Fakir H, Randhawa G, et al. Defining radio-recurrent intra-prostatic target volumes using PSMA-targeted PET/CT and multi-parametric MRI. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2021;32:41–47. doi: 10.1016/j.ctro.2021.11.006 EDN: NBASST
  73. Rasing M, van Son M, Moerland M, et al. Value of targeted biopsies and combined PSMA PET/CT and mp-MRI imaging in locally recurrent prostate cancer after primary radiotherapy. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(3):781. doi: 10.3390/cancers14030781 EDN: POUONH
  74. Albalooshi B, Al Sharhan M, Bagheri F, et al. Direct comparison of 99mTc-PSMA SPECT/CT and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in patients with prostate cancer. Asia Ocean J Nucl Med Biol. 2020;8(1):1–7. doi: 10.22038/aojnmb.2019.43943.1293
  75. Lawal IO, Ankrah AO, Mokgoro NP, et al. Diagnostic sensitivity of Tc-99m HYNIC PSMA SPECT/CT in prostate carcinoma: a comparative analysis with Ga-68 PSMA PET/CT. Prostate. 2017;77(11):1205–1212. doi: 10.1002/pros.23379
  76. De Bari B, Mazzola R, Aiello D, et al. Could 68-Ga PSMA PET/CT become a new tool in the decision-making strategy of prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence of PSA after radical prostatectomy? A preliminary, monocentric series. Radiol med. 2018;123(9):719–725. doi: 10.1007/s11547-018-0890-7 EDN: UOCNNY
  77. Meijer D, Eppinga WSC, Mohede RM, et al. Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography is associated with improved oncological outcome in men treated with salvage radiation therapy for biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2022;5(2):146–152. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2022.01.001 EDN: EJCJZQ
  78. Steuber T, Jilg C, Tennstedt P, et al. Standard of care versus metastases-directed therapy for PET-detected nodal oligorecurrent prostate cancer following multimodality treatment: a multi-institutional case-control study. Eur Urol Focus. 2019;5(6):1007–1013. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.02.015 EDN: GGXATS
  79. Ost P, Reynders D, Decaestecker K, et al. Surveillance or metastasis-directed therapy for oligometastatic prostate cancer recurrence: a prospective, randomized, multicenter phase II trial. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(5):446–453. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.75.4853 EDN: YFTYOT
  80. Domachevsky L, Bernstine H, Goldberg N, et al. Early 68GA-PSMA PET/MRI acquisition: assessment of lesion detectability and PET metrics in patients with prostate cancer undergoing same-day late PET/CT. Clin Radiol. 2017;72(11):944–950. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2017.06.116
  81. Muehlematter UJ, Burger IA, Becker AS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI versus 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET–MRI for extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion in patients with prostate cancer. Radiology. 2019;293(2):350–358. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019190687 EDN: KWPAPG
  82. Rauscher I, Maurer T, Beer AJ, et al. Value of 68Ga-PSMA HBED-CC PET for the assessment of lymph node metastases in prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence: comparison with histopathology after salvage lymphadenectomy. J Nucl Med. 2016;57(11):1713–1719. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.116.173492
  83. Freitag MT, Radtke JP, Hadaschik BA, et al. Comparison of hybrid (68)Ga-PSMA PET–MRI and (68)Ga-PSMA PET–CT in the evaluation of lymph node and bone metastases of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43(1):70–83. doi: 10.1007/s00259-015-3206-3
  84. Domachevsky L, Bernstine H, Goldberg N, et al. Comparison between pelvic PSMA-PET/MR and whole-body PSMA-PET/CT for the initial evaluation of prostate cancer: a proof of concept study. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(1):328–336. doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06353-y EDN: KMSBPG
  85. Guberina N, Hetkamp P, Ruebben H, et al. Whole-Body Integrated [68Ga]PSMA-11-PET/MR imaging in patients with recurrent prostate cancer: comparison with whole-body PET/CT as the standard of reference. Mol Imaging Biol. 2020;22(3):788–796. doi: 10.1007/s11307-019-01424-4 EDN: JFXPCT
  86. Hammer BE, Christensen NL, Heil BG Use of a magnetic field to increase the spatial resolution of positron emission tomography. Med Phys. 1994;21(12):1917–1920. doi: 10.1118/1.597178
  87. Lütje S, Cohnen J, Gomez B, et al. Integrated 68Ga-HBED-CC-PSMA-PET/MRI in patients with suspected recurrent prostate cancer. Nuklearmedizin. 2017;56(3):73–81. doi: 10.3413/Nukmed-0850-16-09 EDN: YHZYJI
  88. Glemser PA, Rotkopf LT, Ziener CH. et al. Hybrid imaging with [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET-CT and PET-MRI in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. Cancer Imaging. 2022;22(1):53. doi: 10.1186/s40644-022-00489-9 EDN: RWPVCM
  89. Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II-2020 update: treatment of relapsing and metastatic prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2021;79(2):263–282. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.046 EDN: DIYUWG
  90. Schaeffer EM, Srinivas S, Adra N, et al. NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Prostate Cancer, Version 3.2024. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2024;22(3):140–150. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2024.0019 EDN: FGJHUU
  91. Kanesvaran R, Castro E, Wong A, et al. Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with prostate cancer. ESMO Open. 2022;7(4):100518. doi: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2022.100518 EDN: XMNZIQ
  92. Fendler WP, Calais J, Eiber M, et al. False positive PSMA PET for tumor remnants in the irradiated prostate and other interpretation pitfalls in a prospective multi-center trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48(2):501–508. doi: 10.1007/s00259-020-04945-1 EDN: LCAVNA
  93. Chen MY, Franklin A, Yaxley J, et al. Solitary rib lesions showing prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) uptake in pre-treatment staging 68 Ga-PSMA-11 positron emission tomography scans for men with prostate cancer: benign or malignant? BJU Int. 2020;126(3):396–401. doi: 10.1111/bju.15152 EDN: ZWDNWL
  94. Hofman MS, Hicks RJ, Maurer T, Eiber M. Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET: clinical utility in prostate cancer, normal patterns, pearls, and pitfalls. Radiographics. 2018;38(1):200–217. doi: 10.1148/rg.2018170108 EDN: VDZCOY
  95. Eiber M, Herrmann K, Calais J, et al. Prostate cancer molecular imaging standardized evaluation (PROMISE): proposed miTNM classification for the interpretation of PSMA-ligand PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2018;59(3):469–478. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.117.198119 EDN: YHZFXV
  96. Rowe SP, Pienta KJ, Pomper MG, Gorin MA. Proposal for a structured reporting system for prostate-specific membrane antigen-targeted PET imaging: PSMA-RADS Version 1.0. J Nucl Med. 2018;59(30):479–485. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.117.195255

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download
2. Fig. 1

Download (227KB)
Indexing metadata
3. Fig. 2

Download (106KB)
Indexing metadata
4. Fig. 3

Download (381KB)
Indexing metadata
5. Fig. 4

Download (434KB)
Indexing metadata
6. Fig. 5

Download (321KB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2025 Eco-Vector

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Согласие на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика»

1. Я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных»), осуществляя использование сайта https://journals.rcsi.science/ (далее – «Сайт»), подтверждая свою полную дееспособность даю согласие на обработку персональных данных с использованием средств автоматизации Оператору - федеральному государственному бюджетному учреждению «Российский центр научной информации» (РЦНИ), далее – «Оператор», расположенному по адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А, со следующими условиями.

2. Категории обрабатываемых данных: файлы «cookies» (куки-файлы). Файлы «cookie» – это небольшой текстовый файл, который веб-сервер может хранить в браузере Пользователя. Данные файлы веб-сервер загружает на устройство Пользователя при посещении им Сайта. При каждом следующем посещении Пользователем Сайта «cookie» файлы отправляются на Сайт Оператора. Данные файлы позволяют Сайту распознавать устройство Пользователя. Содержимое такого файла может как относиться, так и не относиться к персональным данным, в зависимости от того, содержит ли такой файл персональные данные или содержит обезличенные технические данные.

3. Цель обработки персональных данных: анализ пользовательской активности с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика».

4. Категории субъектов персональных данных: все Пользователи Сайта, которые дали согласие на обработку файлов «cookie».

5. Способы обработки: сбор, запись, систематизация, накопление, хранение, уточнение (обновление, изменение), извлечение, использование, передача (доступ, предоставление), блокирование, удаление, уничтожение персональных данных.

6. Срок обработки и хранения: до получения от Субъекта персональных данных требования о прекращении обработки/отзыва согласия.

7. Способ отзыва: заявление об отзыве в письменном виде путём его направления на адрес электронной почты Оператора: info@rcsi.science или путем письменного обращения по юридическому адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А

8. Субъект персональных данных вправе запретить своему оборудованию прием этих данных или ограничить прием этих данных. При отказе от получения таких данных или при ограничении приема данных некоторые функции Сайта могут работать некорректно. Субъект персональных данных обязуется сам настроить свое оборудование таким способом, чтобы оно обеспечивало адекватный его желаниям режим работы и уровень защиты данных файлов «cookie», Оператор не предоставляет технологических и правовых консультаций на темы подобного характера.

9. Порядок уничтожения персональных данных при достижении цели их обработки или при наступлении иных законных оснований определяется Оператором в соответствии с законодательством Российской Федерации.

10. Я согласен/согласна квалифицировать в качестве своей простой электронной подписи под настоящим Согласием и под Политикой обработки персональных данных выполнение мною следующего действия на сайте: https://journals.rcsi.science/ нажатие мною на интерфейсе с текстом: «Сайт использует сервис «Яндекс.Метрика» (который использует файлы «cookie») на элемент с текстом «Принять и продолжить».