ReviewConsensus on molecular imaging and theranostics in prostate cancer
Introduction
Worldwide, more than 1 000 000 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer and over 300 000 men die from it annually,1, 2 with an increasing incidence as a result of greater life expectancy.3, 4, 5 Developments in diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer are evolving very rapidly, and the 5-year relative survival for patients has increased from 73·4% (95% CI 72·9–73·9) in 1999–2001 to 81·7% (81·3–82·1) in 2005–07. With several clinical trials showing improved overall survival with new drugs, it is likely to further improve in the coming years.4, 6
The costs of prostate cancer management are also increasing, with an overall cost in the EU of €8·43 billion for 2009.7 High costs underscore the need for improved communication and cooperation among the medical specialties involved in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with prostate cancer to generate pertinent data in clinical trials to facilitate the rational integration of imaging into clinical decision making.
Several imaging methods for the evaluation of prostate cancer have been suggested, and these include methods that have been available for decades (eg, CT, bone scintigraphy, and transrectal ultrasound), as well as those that were introduced more recently (eg, whole-body MRI [WB-MRI], multiparametric MRI, and PET). However, there has been little consensus about the usefulness of these approaches.8, 9, 10, 11
Promotion of the use of the most appropriate diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in clinical practice, guidelines, and consensus statements, are of paramount importance for the medical community, although they cannot replace scientific evidence. The availability of an increasing number of therapeutic and diagnostic options requires more careful choices. Evidence-based data (eg, meta-analyses) are often unable to inform the appropriate use of available medical options, and most guidelines that are promoted by professional organisations tend to lead to bias because experts are usually selected from within the same specialty. In the area of prostate cancer, most clinical guidelines have been promoted by urological societies (including the European Association of Urology [EAU] and American Urological Association [AUA]), oncological societies (including the European Society for Medical Oncology [ESMO], Society of Urologic Oncology [SUO], American Society for Clinical Oncology, International Society of Geriatric Oncology [SIOG], and National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN]), and radiation oncology societies (including the American Society for Radiation Oncology [ASTRO], and the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology [ESTRO]), and attempts at producing collaborative guidelines have been made recently (eg, AUA with ASTRO and SUO,12 and EAU with ESTRO and SIOG13, 14). The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference is the sole attempt to obtain consensus globally on areas of diagnostic and treatment uncertainty, including imaging.11
Representing nuclear medicine specialists who have led advances in novel molecular imaging techniques for prostate cancer, the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) decided to promote a project named Focus 1 to develop consensus statements in prostate cancer with a well-balanced and structured methodology. For this purpose, a multidisciplinary panel of international experts was established with representation from all involved specialties that included a balanced number of oncologists, urologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, and nuclear medicine specialists, to achieve a less biased consensus than those conducted with more restrictive representation of specialties; patient advocates were also involved.
Section snippets
Panellist selection
Panellists were selected on the basis of their expertise and publication record in the diagnosis or treatment of prostate cancer as well as on their involvement in the development of guidelines. We sought representation of all core clinical disciplines listed previously, and panellists were actively involved in all stages of a modified Delphi consensus process (figure). Preference was given to candidates already involved in similar guideline projects. Availability for the modified Delphi
Questionnaire
With the results of the literature review (appendix) used as a basis to tackle the most pertinent questions relating to prostate cancer imaging, a questionnaire was proposed and agreed upon among the panellists. A modified Delphi process was then used to gain a structured consensus on each of these identified and researched topics.32 Anonymised summaries of the first two rounds of the modified Delphi process served as the basis for live presentations and further discussions during the EANM
Findings
Four clinical topics were identified from the systematic review that informed the subsequent modified Delphi process. These were imaging for staging of prostate cancer, imaging at biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer, imaging of advanced prostate cancer, and therapy of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with radiopharmaceuticals. Findings that were asked in the questionnaire can be found in the table.
Guidelines and consensus
Development of guidelines and consensus statements is of paramount importance for the medical community to guide clinical decision making. The availability of an increasing number of diagnostic and therapeutic options for prostate cancer requires careful decision making to optimise the use of resources, while appreciating that evidence-based data, such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses, are not always sufficient to inform appropriate use of medical options.55
To address the clinical need
Conclusion
EANM Focus 1 constitutes the efforts of a multidisciplinary panel of international experts to produce a comprehensive series of statements on prostate cancer imaging and therapy with radiopharmaceuticals. This approach can be regarded as a useful method to build consensus on topics of relevant clinical value, in which differing views might exist. Consensus was achieved for many questions, and clear preferences were expressed for the remainder. The most relevant conclusions drawn regarding the
References (62)
- et al.
Recent trends in incidence of five common cancers in 26 European countries since 1988: analysis of the European Cancer Observatory
Eur J Cancer
(2015) - et al.
Cancer survival in Europe 1999–2007 by country and age: results of EUROCARE-5— a population-based study
Lancet Oncol
(2014) - et al.
Addition of docetaxel or bisphosphonates to standard of care in men with localised or metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analyses of aggregate data
Lancet Oncol
(2016) - et al.
Economic burden of cancer across the European Union: a population-based cost analysis
Lancet Oncol
(2013) - et al.
Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) alone is not an appropriate surrogate marker of long-term therapeutic benefit in prostate cancer trials
Eur J Cancer
(2006) - et al.
Early detection of prostate cancer: European Association of Urology recommendation
Eur Urol
(2013) - et al.
Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer: the report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017
Eur Urol
(2018) - et al.
Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO guideline. Part I: Risk stratification, shared decision making, and care options
J Urol
(2018) - et al.
EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: Treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer
Eur Urol
(2017) - et al.
EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent
Eur Urol
(2017)
The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis
Clin Radiol
Utility of choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography for lymph node involvement identification in intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis
Eur Urol
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
Sensitivity, specificity, and predictors of positive 68Ga–prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in advanced prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Eur Urol
Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of bone metastasis in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Eur Urol
Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of local prostate cancer recurrence after external beam radiotherapy and radical prostatectomy
Clin Oncol
Two-year survival follow-up of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study of radium-223 chloride in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases
Clin Genitourin Cancer
Consensus-based standards for best supportive care in clinical trials in advanced cancer
Lancet Oncol
Challenges and recommendations for early identification of metastatic disease in prostate cancer
Urology
METastasis reporting and data system for prostate cancer: practical guidelines for acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging-based evaluations of multiorgan involvement in advanced prostate cancer
Eur Urol
Cancer of the prostate: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up
Ann Oncol
[177Lu]-PSMA-617 radionuclide treatment in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (LuPSMA trial): a single-centre, single-arm, phase 2 study
Lancet Oncol
Imaging for prostate cancer recurrence
Eur Urol Focus
GLOBOCAN 2012: Estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2012
Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012
Int J Cancer
Prostate cancer incidence in 43 populations worldwide: an analysis of time trends overall and by age group
Int J Cancer
Prostate Cancer. Recommendations to lower the risk and mortality rate of the most frequent cancer in men
Comparison of choline-PET/CT, MRI, SPECT, and bone scintigraphy in the diagnosis of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis
Skeletal Radiol
A literature review of 18F-fluoride PET/CT and 18F-choline or 11C-choline PET/CT for detection of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer
Nucl Med Commun
Choline PET or PET/CT and biochemical relapse of prostate cancer
Clin Nucl Med
PET/CT with 11C-choline for evaluation of prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence: meta-analysis and critical review of available data
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging
Cited by (85)
The Pythia Speaks on Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
2024, European UrologyCurrent advances in the imaging of atherosclerotic vulnerable plaque using nanoparticles
2022, Materials Today BioCitation Excerpt :Relatively, the usual MRI or CT scan devices combined with novel contrast agents which are functionalized for molecular tracing have broader impacts [78]. Nanotechnology is another promising technology platform for molecular imaging [79,80]. Knowledge of the several advantages of this technology for novel contrast agents is well documented.