title: Current Staging Procedures in Urinary Bladder Cancer.
abstract: Currently computed tomography (CT) represents the most widely used standard imaging modality in muscle-invasive urinary bladder cancer. Visualization of local tumor or depth of invasion as well as lymph node staging, however, is often impaired. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with diffusion-weighted sequences, determination of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values or utilization of superparamagnetic iron nanoparticles potentially exhibits advantages in the assessment of local tumor or lymph node involvement and therefore might play a role in routine staging of urinary bladder cancer in the future. Likewise, positron emission tomography (PET) with the currently utilized tracers (18)F-FDG, (11)C-choline and (11)C-acetate is investigated in bladder cancer patients-mostly in combination with diagnostic CT. Although promising results could be obtained for these PET/CT examinations in smaller series, their true value cannot be determined at present.
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Ismaniger Str. 22, 81675 Munich, Germany. t.maurer@lrz.tum.de.
authors.forename: Tobias
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Maurer
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Ismaniger Str. 22, 81675 Munich, Germany. t.horn@lrz.tum.de.
authors.forename: Thomas
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Horn
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Ismaniger Str. 22, 81675 Munich, Germany. m.heck@lrz.tum.de.
authors.forename: Matthias
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Heck
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Ismaniger Str. 22, 81675 Munich, Germany. juergen.gschwend@lrz.tum.de.
authors.forename: Jürgen E
authors.initials: JE
authors.lastname: Gschwend
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Ismaniger Str. 22, 81675 Munich, Germany. matthias.eiber@tum.de.
authors.forename: Matthias
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Eiber
authors.affiliation: Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Ismaniger Str. 22, 81675 Munich, Germany. ambros.beer@tum.de.
authors.forename: Ambros J
authors.initials: AJ
authors.lastname: Beer
keywords: FDG; MRI; PET/CT; actetate; choline; urinary bladder cancer
references.citation: World J Urol. 2006 Nov;24(5):473-80
references.pmid: 17102950
references.citation: J Nucl Med Technol. 2010 Sep;38(3):128-37
references.pmid: 20807854
references.citation: Clin Imaging. 2010 Sep-Oct;34(5):361-6
references.pmid: 20813300
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2012 May;61(5):1031-8
references.pmid: 22196847
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2013 Feb;63(2):234-41
references.pmid: 22877502
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2010 Apr;57(4):641-7
references.pmid: 19477579
references.citation: Scand J Urol. 2013 Apr;47(2):108-12
references.pmid: 22989110
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2010 Sep 1;28(25):3973-8
references.pmid: 20679618
references.citation: BMC Med. 2013 Apr 10;11:104
references.pmid: 23574966
references.citation: Lancet. 2003 Jun 7;361(9373):1927-34
references.pmid: 12801735
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Apr;192(4):949-55
references.pmid: 19304699
references.citation: Clin Nucl Med. 2012 Apr;37(4):e67-72
references.pmid: 22391726
references.citation: Radiology. 2004 Nov;233(2):449-56
references.pmid: 15375228
references.citation: BJU Int. 2012 Nov;110(10 ):1463-70
references.pmid: 22500557
references.citation: J Urol. 2011 Aug;186(2):436-41
references.pmid: 21679983
references.citation: Eur J Radiol. 2012 Dec;81(12):4131-7
references.pmid: 22858427
references.citation: Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2011 Mar;45(2):122-8
references.pmid: 21231796
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2003 Aug 28;349(9):859-66
references.pmid: 12944571
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2012 Feb;61(2):237-42
references.pmid: 22033174
references.citation: Mol Imaging Biol. 2012 Apr;14 (2):245-51
references.pmid: 21491174
references.citation: BJU Int. 2010 Sep;106(5):658-63
references.pmid: 20151968
references.citation: Nucl Med Commun. 2012 Nov;33(11):1195-201
references.pmid: 22781846
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 May 1;83(1):e21-7
references.pmid: 22414281
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Jan;184(1):121-7
references.pmid: 15615961
references.citation: Eur J Radiol. 2012 Sep;81(9):2411-6
references.pmid: 21899971
references.citation: Mol Imaging Biol. 2011 Apr;13(2):352-61
references.pmid: 20490932
references.citation: Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2012 May-Jun;7(3):346-55
references.pmid: 22539405
references.citation: Eur J Cancer. 2013 Feb;49(3):616-24
references.pmid: 23084842
references.citation: Int J Clin Oncol. 2008 Feb;13(1):42-7
references.pmid: 18307018
references.citation: Nat Med. 2008 Apr;14 (4):459-65
references.pmid: 18376410
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 2012 Jun;53(6):845-55
references.pmid: 22534830
references.citation: Urology. 2012 Dec;80(6):1313-8
references.pmid: 23040723
references.citation: Eur Radiol. 2011 Oct;21(10):2178-86
references.pmid: 21688007
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2009 Sep 10;27(26):4314-20
references.pmid: 19652070
references.citation: J Urol. 2006 Sep;176(3):940-4; discussion 944
references.pmid: 16890661
references.citation: Urol Int. 2011;87(3):346-52
references.pmid: 21934281