Baseline staging of newly diagnosed prostate cancer: a summary of the literature
Affiliations
Affiliations
- Kuwait Cancer Control Center, Kuwait City, Kuwait.
Abstract
Purpose: Staging for prostate cancer often includes bone scanning and computerized tomography (CT). We systematically reviewed the published evidence for these tests.
Materials and methods: We searched MEDLINE for articles on these investigations in newly diagnosed cases of prostate cancer. Data were pooled based on prostate specific antigen (PSA), grade and tumor stage.
Results: Among 23 studies examining the role of bone scan metastases were detected in 2.3%, 5.3% and 16.2% of patients with PSA levels less than 10, 10.1 to 19.9 and 20 to 49.9 ng/ml, respectively. Scanning detected metastases in 6.4% of men with organ confined cancer and 49.5% with locally advanced disease. Detection rates were 5.6% and 29.9% for Gleason scores 7 or less and 8 or greater, respectively. Among 25 studies CT documented lymphadenopathy in 0 and 1.1% of patients with PSA less than 20 and 20 ng/ml or greater, respectively. CT detection rate was 0.7% and 19.6% in patients with localized and locally advanced disease, respectively. Detection rates in patients with Gleason scores 7 or less and 8 or greater were 1.2% and 12.5%, respectively. These risks were typically much greater on pathological evaluation.
Conclusions: Patients with low risk prostate cancer are unlikely to have metastatic disease documented by bone scan or CT. Therefore, these investigations should not be standard practice. However, patients with PSA 20 ng/ml or greater, locally advanced disease, or Gleason score 8 or greater are at higher risk for bone metastases and should be considered for bone scan. CT may be useful in patients with locally advanced disease or Gleason score 8 or greater but appears not to be of benefit in patients with increased PSA alone.
Similar articles
Spencer JA, Chng WJ, Hudson E, Boon AP, Whelan P.Br J Radiol. 1998 Nov;71(851):1130-5. doi: 10.1259/bjr.71.851.10434906.PMID: 10434906 Clinical Trial.
Huncharek M, Muscat J.Cancer Invest. 1995;13(1):31-5. doi: 10.3109/07357909509024892.PMID: 7530590
Matsumura Y, Otani T, Yoneda T, Matsumoto Y, Maruyama Y, Fujimoto K, Hirao Y.Nihon Hinyokika Gakkai Zasshi. 2007 Sep;98(6):764-9. doi: 10.5980/jpnjurol1989.98.764.PMID: 17929458 Japanese.
Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, Mason M, Matveev V, Wiegel T, Zattoni F, Mottet N; European Association of Urology.Eur Urol. 2014 Feb;65(2):467-79. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.11.002. Epub 2013 Nov 12.PMID: 24321502 Review.
Suh CH, Shinagare AB, Westenfield AM, Ramaiya NH, Van den Abbeele AD, Kim KW.Clin Radiol. 2018 Feb;73(2):158-167. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2017.08.004. Epub 2017 Sep 25.PMID: 28958581 Review.
References
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/