Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Consensus on molecular imaging and theranostics in prostate cancer

  • Stefano Fanti
  • , Silvia Minozzi
  • , Gerald Antoch
  • , Ian Banks
  • , Alberto Briganti
  • , Ignasi Carrio
  • , Arturo Chiti
  • , Noel Clarke
  • , Matthias Eiber
  • , Johann de Bono
  • , Karim Fizazi
  • , Silke Gillessen
  • , Sam Gledhill
  • , Uwe Haberkorn
  • , Ken Herrmann
  • , Rodney J. Hicks
  • , Frederic Lecouvet
  • , Rodolfo Montironi
  • , Piet Ost
  • , Joe M. O'Sullivan
  • Anwar R. Padhani, Jack A. Schalken, Howard I. Scher, Bertrand Tombal, R. Jeroen A. van Moorselaar, Heindrik van Poppel, Hebert Alberto Vargas, Jochen Walz, Wolfgang A. Weber, Hans-J. rgen Wester, Wim J. G. Oyen
  • Bologna University Hospital
  • Department of Epidemiology, Rome, Italy
  • Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf
  • European Cancer Organisation and European Men's Health Forum, Ulster, United Kingdom
  • Division of Oncology and Unit of Urology, Milan, Italy
  • Autonomous University of Barcelona
  • IRCCS Istituto Clinico Humanitas - Rozzano (Milano)
  • The Christie NHS Foundation Trust
  • Technical University of Munich
  • MRI Unit
  • Institut Gustave Roussy
  • University of Manchester
  • University of Bern
  • Movember Foundation, Melbourne, Australia
  • Heidelberg University Hospital
  • University of Duisburg-Essen
  • Peter Maccallum Cancer Centre
  • Université catholique de Louvain
  • Marche Polytechnic University
  • Ghent University
  • Queen's University Belfast
  • Mount Vernon Hospital
  • Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College
  • KU Leuven
  • Institut Paoli Calmettes

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Rapid developments in imaging and treatment with radiopharmaceuticals targeting prostate cancer pose issues for the development of guidelines for their appropriate use. To tackle this problem, international experts representing medical oncologists, urologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, and nuclear medicine specialists convened at the European Association of Nuclear Medicine Focus 1 meeting to deliver a balanced perspective on available data and clinical experience of imaging in prostate cancer, which had been supported by a systematic review of the literature and a modified Delphi process. Relevant conclusions included the following: diphosphonate bone scanning and contrast-enhanced CT are mentioned but rarely recommended for most patients in clinical guidelines; MRI (whole-body or multiparametric) and prostate cancer-targeted PET are frequently suggested, but the specific contexts in which these methods affect practice are not established; sodium fluoride-18 for PET-CT bone scanning is not widely advocated, whereas gallium-68 or fluorine-18 prostate-specific membrane antigen gain acceptance; and, palliative treatment with bone targeting radiopharmaceuticals (rhenium-186, samarium-153, or strontium-89) have largely been replaced by radium-223 on the basis of the survival benefit that was reported in prospective trials, and by other systemic therapies with proven survival benefits. Although the advances in MRI and PET-CT have improved the accuracy of imaging, the effects of these new methods on clinical outcomes remains to be established. Improved communication between imagers and clinicians and more multidisciplinary input in clinical trial design are essential to encourage imaging insights into clinical decision making.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)e696-e708
JournalThe Lancet Oncology
Volume19
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Consensus on molecular imaging and theranostics in prostate cancer'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this