Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Functional and molecular imaging of localized and recurrent prostate cancer

  • Review Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy among American men. Imaging of localized and recurrent prostate cancer is challenging since conventional imaging techniques are limited. New imaging techniques such as multiparametric MRI and PET with targeted tracers have been investigated extensively in the last decade. As a result, the role of novel imaging techniques for the detection of localized and recurrent prostate cancer has recently expanded. In this review, novel functional and molecular imaging techniques used in the management of localized and recurrent prostate cancer are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:69–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62:10–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rørvik J, Halvorsen OJ, Espeland A, Haukaas S. Inability of refined CT to assess local extent of prostatic cancer. Acta Radiol. 1993;34:39–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Turkbey B, Bernardo M, Merino MJ, Wood BJ, Pinto PA, Choyke PL. MRI of localized prostate cancer: coming of age in the PSA era. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2012;18:34–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bouchelouche K, Turkbey B, Choyke P, Capala J. Imaging prostate cancer: an update on positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Curr Urol Rep. 2010;11:180–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:746–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tamada T, Sone T, Higashi H, Jo Y, Yamamoto A, Kanki A, et al. Prostate cancer detection in patients with total serum prostate-specific antigen levels of 4–10 ng/mL: diagnostic efficacy of diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, and T2-weighted imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:664–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Turkbey B, Pinto PA, Mani H, Bernardo M, Pang Y, McKinney YL, et al. Prostate cancer: value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3T for detection – histopathologic correlation. Radiology. 2010;255:89–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Vargas HA, Akin O, Shukla-Dave A, Zhang J, Zakian KL, Zheng J, et al. Performance characteristics of MR imaging in the evaluation of clinically low-risk prostate cancer: a prospective study. Radiology. 2012;265:478–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Akin O, Sala E, Moskowitz CS, Kuroiwa K, Ishill NM, Pucar D, et al. Transition zone prostate cancers: features, detection, localization, and staging at endorectal MR imaging. Radiology. 2006;239:784–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T, Goldman DA, Udo K, Touijer KA, et al. Normal central zone of the prostate and central zone involvement by prostate cancer: clinical and MR imaging implications. Radiology. 2012;262:894–902.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hoeks CM, Hambrock T, Yakar D, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Feuth T, Witjes JA, et al. Transition zone prostate cancer: detection and localization with 3-T multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology. 2013;266:207–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Turkbey B, Choyke PL. Multiparametric MRI and prostate cancer diagnosis and risk stratification. Curr Opin Urol. 2012;22:310–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bloch BN, Furman-Haran E, Helbich TH, Lenkinski RE, Degani H, Kratzik C, et al. Prostate cancer: accurate determination of extracapsular extension with high-spatial-resolution dynamic contrast-enhanced and T2-weighted MR imaging: initial results. Radiology. 2007;245:176–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sala E, Akin O, Moskowitz CS, Eisenberg HF, Kuroiwa K, Ishill NM, et al. Endorectal MR imaging in the evaluation of seminal vesicle invasion: diagnostic accuracy and multivariate feature analysis. Radiology. 2006;238:929–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Vargas HA, Wassberg C, Akin O, Hricak H. MR imaging of treated prostate. Cancer Radiol. 2012;262:26–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cirillo S, Petracchini M, Scotti L, Gallo T, Macera A, Bona MC, 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;19:761–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Casciani E, Polettini E, Carmenini E, Floriani I, Masselli G, Bertini L, et al. Endorectal and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for detection of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:1187–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Westphalen AC, Coakley FV, Roach 3rd M, McCulloch CE, Kurhanewicz J. Locally recurrent prostate cancer after external beam radiation therapy: diagnostic performance of 1.5-T endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging for detection. Radiology. 2010;256:485–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Padhani AR, Liu G, Koh DM, Chenevert TL, Thoeny HC, Takahara T, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia. 2009;11:102–25.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Zelhof B, Pickles M, Liney G, Gibbs P, Rodrigues G, Kraus S, et al. Correlation of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance data with cellularity in prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2009;103:883–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gibbs P, Tozer DJ, Liney GP, Turnbull LW. Comparison of quantitative T2 mapping and diffusion-weighted imaging in the normal and pathologic prostate. Magn Reson Med. 2001;46:1054–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Oto A, Kayhan A, Jiang Y, Tretiakova M, Yang C, Antic T, et al. Prostate cancer: differentiation of central gland cancer from benign prostatic hyperplasia by using diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2010;257:715–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tamada T, Sone T, Toshimitsu S, Imai S, Jo Y, Yoshida K, et al. Age-related and zonal anatomical changes of apparent diffusion coefficient values in normal human prostatic tissues. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;27:552–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wu LM, Xu JR, Ye YQ, Lu Q, Hu JN. The clinical value of diffusion-weighted imaging in combination with T2-weighted imaging in diagnosing prostate carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199:103–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Haider MA, van der Kwast TH, Tanguay J, Evans AJ, Hashmi AT, Lockwood G, et al. Combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI for localization of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189:323–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, et al. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology. 2011;259:453–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Turkbey B, Shah VP, Pang Y, Bernardo M, Xu S, Kruecker J, et al. Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? Radiology. 2011;258:488–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kim CK, Park BK, Lee HM. Prediction of locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiation therapy: incremental value of 3T diffusion-weighted MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;29:391–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kim CK, Park BK, Lee HM, Kim SS, Kim E. MRI techniques for prediction of local tumor progression after high-intensity focused ultrasonic ablation of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:1180–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Metens T, Miranda D, Absil J, Matos C. What is the optimal b-value in diffusion-weighted MR imaging to depict prostate cancer at 3T? Eur Radiol. 2012;22:703–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Mazaheri Y, Vargas HA, Akin O, Goldman DA, Hricak H. Reducing the influence of b-value selection on diffusion-weighted imaging of the prostate: evaluation of a revised monoexponential model within a clinical setting. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;35:660–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D, Aubin ML, Vignaud J, Laval-Jeantet M. Separation of diffusion and perfusion in intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Radiology. 1988;168:497–505.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Pang Y, Turkbey B, Bernardo M, Kruecker J, Kadoury S, Merino MJ, et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging for prostate cancer: an evaluation of perfusion fraction and diffusion coefficient derived from different b-value combinations. Magn Reson Med. 2013;69:553–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Blackledge MD, Leach MO, Collins DJ, Koh DM. Computed diffusion-weighted MR imaging may improve tumor detection. Radiology. 2011;261:573–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Mazaheri Y, Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, Fine SW, Zhang J, Inurrigarro G, et al. Prostate cancer: identification with combined diffusion-weighted MR imaging and 3D 1H MR spectroscopic imaging – correlation with pathologic findings. Radiology. 2008;246:480–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. McLean MA, Barrett T, Gnanapragasam VJ, Priest AN, Joubert I, Lomas DJ, et al. Prostate cancer metabolite quantification relative to water in 1H-MRSI in vivo at 3 Tesla. Magn Reson Med. 2011;65:914–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Yakar D, Heijmink SW, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Huisman H, Barentsz JO, Futterer JJ, et al. Initial results of 3-dimensional 1H-magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging in the localization of prostate cancer at 3 Tesla: should we use an endorectal coil? Invest Radiol. 2011;46:301–306.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Yerram NK, Volkin D, Turkbey B, Nix J, Hoang AN, Vourganti S, et al. Low suspicion lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging predict for the absence of high-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2012;110(11 Pt B):E783–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Coakley FV, Kurhanewicz J, Lu Y, Jones KD, Swanson MG, Chang SD, et al. Prostate cancer tumor volume: measurement with endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology. 2002;223:91–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Futterer JJ, Heijmink SW, Scheenen TW, Veltman J, Huisman HJ, Vos P, et al. Prostate cancer localization with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology. 2006;241:449–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Turkbey B, Mani H, Shah V, Rastinehad AR, Bernardo M, Pohida T, et al. Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. J Urol. 2011;186:1818–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Yu KK, Scheidler J, Hricak H, Vigneron DB, Zaloudek CJ, Males RG, et al. Prostate cancer: prediction of extracapsular extension with endorectal MR imaging and three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology. 1999;213:481–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Zakian KL, Sircar K, Hricak H, Chen HN, Shukla-Dave A, Eberhardt S, et al. Correlation of proton MR spectroscopic imaging with Gleason score based on step-section pathologic analysis after radical prostatectomy. Radiology. 2005;234(3):804–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kobus T, Hambrock T, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Wright AJ, Barentsz JO, Heerschap A, et al. In vivo assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging at 3T with an endorectal coil. Eur Urol. 2011;60:1074–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, Akin O, Yu C, Zakian KL, Udo K, et al. Preoperative nomograms incorporating magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2012;109:1315–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Westphalen AC, Reed GD, Vinh PP, Sotto C, Vigneron DB, Kurhanewicz J. Multiparametric 3T endorectal MRI after external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;36:430–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Pucar D, Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, Moskowitz CS, Kuroiwa K, Olgac S, et al. Prostate cancer: correlation of MR imaging and MR spectroscopy with pathologic findings after radiation therapy – initial experience. Radiology. 2005;236:545–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Zakian KL, Hricak H, Ishill N, Reuter VE, Eberhardt S, Moskowitz CS, et al. An exploratory study of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy of the prostate as preoperative predictive biomarkers of biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2010;184:2320–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Sciarra A, Panebianco V, Salciccia S, Lisi D, Alfarone A, Gentilucci A, et al. Determination of the time for maximal response to neoadjuvant hormone therapy for prostate cancer using magnetic resonance with spectroscopy (MRSI) and dynamic contrast enhancement (DCEMR). Urol Oncol. 2012;30:614–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Verma S, Turkbey B, Muradyan N, Rajesh A, Cornud F, Haider MA, et al. Overview of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in prostate cancer diagnosis and management. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198:1277–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Haider MA, Chung P, Sweet J, Toi A, Jhaveri K, Ménard C, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for localization of recurrent prostate cancer after external beam radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;70:425–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Puech P, Betrouni N, Makni N, Dewalle AS, Villers A, Lemaitre L. Computer-assisted diagnosis of prostate cancer using DCE-MRI data: design, implementation and preliminary results. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2009;4:1–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL, Evelhoch JL, Henderson E, Knopp MV, et al. Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI of a diffusible tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;10:223–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Ocak I, Bernardo M, Metzger G, Barrett T, Pinto P, Albert PS, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer at 3 T: a study of pharmacokinetic parameters. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189:849.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Delongchamps NB, Rouanne M, Flam T, Beuvon F, Liberatore M, Zerbib M, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the detection and localization of prostate cancer: combination of T2-weighted, dynamic contrast enhanced and diffusion-weighted imaging. BJU Int. 2011;107:1411–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Sella T, Schwartz LH, Swindle PW, Onyebuchi CN, Scardino PT, Scher HI, et al. Suspected local recurrence after radical prostatectomy: endorectal coil MR imaging. Radiology. 2004;231:379–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Shiiba M, Ishihara K, Kimura G, Kuwako T, Yoshihara H, Sato H, et al. Evaluation of primary prostate cancer using 11C-methionine-PET/CT and 18F-FDG-PET/CT. Ann Nucl Med. 2012;26:138–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Minamimoto R, Uemura H, Sano F, Terao H, Nagashima Y, Yamanaka S, et al. The potential of FDG-PET/CT for detecting prostate cancer in patients with an elevated serum PSA level. Ann Nucl Med. 2011;25:21–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Hara T, Kosaka N, Kishi H. PET imaging of prostate cancer using carbon-11-choline. J Nucl Med. 1998;39:990–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Farsad M, Schiavina R, Castellucci P, Nanni C, Corti B, Martorana G, et al. Detection and localization of prostate cancer: correlation of (11)C-choline PET/CT with histopathologic step-section analysis. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1642–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Eschmann SM, Pfannenberg AC, Rieger A, Aschoff P, Müller M, Paulsen F, et al. Comparison of 11C-choline-PET/CT and whole body-MRI for staging of prostate cancer. Nuklearmedizin. 2007;46:161–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Yamaguchi T, Lee J, Uemura H, Sasaki T, Takahashi N, Oka T, et al. Prostate cancer: a comparative study of 11C-choline PET and MR imaging combined with proton MR spectroscopy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:742–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Beer AJ, Eiber M, Souvatzoglou M, Holzapfel K, Ganter C, Weirich G, et al. Restricted water diffusibility as measured by diffusion-weighted MR imaging and choline uptake in (11)C-choline PET/CT are correlated in pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer. Mol Imaging Biol. 2011;13:352–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Park H, Wood D, Hussain H, Meyer CR, Shah RB, Johnson TD, et al. Introducing parametric fusion PET/MRI of primary prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:546–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Kato T, Tsukamoto E, Kuge Y, Takei T, Shiga T, Shinohara N, et al. Accumulation of [11C]acetate in normal prostate and benign prostatic hyperplasia: comparison with prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29:1492–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Mena E, Turkbey B, Mani H, Adler S, Valera VA, Bernardo M, et al. 11C-Acetate PET/CT in localized prostate cancer: a study with MRI and histopathologic correlation. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:538–45.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Jambor I, Borra R, Kemppainen J, Lepomäki V, Parkkola R, Dean K, et al. Improved detection of localized prostate cancer using co-registered MRI and 11C-acetate PET/CT. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:2966–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Jambor I, Borra R, Kemppainen J, Lepomäki V, Parkkola R, Dean K, et al. Functional imaging of localized prostate cancer aggressiveness using 11C-acetate PET/CT and 1H-MR spectroscopy. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1676–83.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Wachter S, Tomek S, Kurtaran A, Wachter-Gerstner N, Djavan B, Becherer A, et al. 11C-acetate positron emission tomography imaging and image fusion with computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in patients with recurrent prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2513–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Schuster DM, Votaw JR, Nieh PT, Yu W, Nye JA, Master V, et al. Initial experience with the radiotracer anti-1-amino-3-18F-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid with PET/CT in prostate carcinoma. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:56–63.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Schuster DM, Savir-Baruch B, Nieh PT, Master VA, Halkar RK, Rossi PJ, et al. Detection of recurrent prostate carcinoma with anti-1-amino-3-18F-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid PET/CT and 111In-capromab pendetide SPECT/CT. Radiology. 2011;259:852–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Mosavi F, Johansson S, Sandberg DT, Turesson I, Sörensen J, Ahlström H. Whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI compared with (18)F-NaF PET/CT for detection of bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199:1114–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Kurdziel KA, Shih JH, Apolo AB, Lindenberg L, Mena E, McKinney YY, et al. The kinetics and reproducibility of 18F-sodium fluoride for oncology using current PET camera technology. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:1175–84.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Kinzya Grant, Maria L. Lindenberg, Marcelino Bernardo, Karen A. Kurdziel, Baris Turkbey & Peter L. Choyke

  2. Department of Radiology, Urology and Nephrology Center, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt

    Haytham Shebel

  3. Philips Healthcare, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Yuxi Pang

  4. Philips Research North America, Briarcliff Manor, NY, USA

    Harsh K. Agarwal

  5. SAIC Frederick, NCI-Frederick, Frederick, MA, 21702, USA

    Marcelino Bernardo

  6. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 10 Center Dr, MSC 1182 Bldg 10, Room B3B69, Bethesda, MD, 20892-1088, USA

    Baris Turkbey

Authors
  1. Kinzya Grant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria L. Lindenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Haytham Shebel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yuxi Pang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Harsh K. Agarwal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marcelino Bernardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Karen A. Kurdziel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Baris Turkbey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Peter L. Choyke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Baris Turkbey.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grant, K., Lindenberg, M.L., Shebel, H. et al. Functional and molecular imaging of localized and recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40 (Suppl 1), 48–59 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-013-2419-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-013-2419-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation