AC Search
Document Navigator

Post-Treatment Follow-up of Prostate Cancer

Variant: 1   Prostate cancer follow-up. Status post radical prostatectomy. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
Choline PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢
Fluciclovine PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢
DCFPyL PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
Fluciclovine PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
PSMA PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
MRI-targeted biopsy prostatectomy bed May Be Appropriate O
TRUS-guided biopsy prostatectomy bed May Be Appropriate O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast May Be Appropriate (Disagreement) O
MRI pelvis without IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
Bone scan whole body May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢
Choline PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh May Be Appropriate (Disagreement) ☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢
Fluoride PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh May Be Appropriate (Disagreement) ☢☢☢☢
TRUS prostatectomy bed Usually Not Appropriate O
Radiography skeletal survey Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
CT chest abdomen pelvis with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
CT chest abdomen pelvis without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
CT chest abdomen pelvis without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢☢

Variant: 2   Prostate cancer follow-up. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease after nonsurgical local and pelvic treatments.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
Choline PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢
Fluciclovine PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢
DCFPyL PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
Fluciclovine PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
PSMA PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
MRI-targeted biopsy prostate May Be Appropriate O
TRUS-guided biopsy prostate May Be Appropriate O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast May Be Appropriate (Disagreement) O
MRI pelvis without IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
Bone scan whole body May Be Appropriate (Disagreement) ☢☢☢
Choline PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh May Be Appropriate (Disagreement) ☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢
Fluoride PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh May Be Appropriate (Disagreement) ☢☢☢☢
TRUS prostate Usually Not Appropriate O
Radiography skeletal survey Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
CT chest abdomen pelvis with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
CT chest abdomen pelvis without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
CT chest abdomen pelvis without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢☢

Variant: 3   Metastatic prostate cancer treated by systemic therapy (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT], chemotherapy, immunotherapy). Follow-up.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
Bone scan whole body Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢
Choline PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢
Choline PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢
Fluciclovine PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢
CT chest abdomen pelvis with IV contrast Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
DCFPyL PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
Fluciclovine PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
PSMA PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast May Be Appropriate (Disagreement) O
MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢
CT chest abdomen pelvis without IV contrast May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
Fluoride PET/CT whole body May Be Appropriate (Disagreement) ☢☢☢☢
MRI-targeted biopsy prostatectomy bed Usually Not Appropriate O
TRUS prostatectomy bed Usually Not Appropriate O
TRUS-guided biopsy prostatectomy bed Usually Not Appropriate O
Radiography skeletal survey Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢
MRI pelvis without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
CT chest abdomen pelvis without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢☢

Panel Members
Baris Turkbey, MDa; Aytekin Oto, MDb; Brian C. Allen, MDc; Oguz Akin, MDd; Lauren F. Alexander, MDe; Mim Ari, MDf; Adam T. Froemming, MDg; Pat F. Fulgham, MDh; Lori Mankowski Gettle, MD, MBAi; Jodi K. Maranchie, MDj; Seth A. Rosenthal, MDk; Nicola Schieda, MDl; David M. Schuster, MDm; Aradhana M. Venkatesan, MDn; Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPHo.
Summary of Literature Review
Introduction/Background
Special Imaging Considerations
Discussion of Procedures by Variant
Variant 1: Prostate cancer follow-up. Status post radical prostatectomy. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease.
Variant 1: Prostate cancer follow-up. Status post radical prostatectomy. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease.
A. Bone Scan
Variant 1: Prostate cancer follow-up. Status post radical prostatectomy. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease.
B. CT Abdomen and Pelvis
Variant 1: Prostate cancer follow-up. Status post radical prostatectomy. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease.
C. CT Chest Abdomen and Pelvis
Variant 1: Prostate cancer follow-up. Status post radical prostatectomy. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease.
D. MRI Pelvis
Variant 1: Prostate cancer follow-up. Status post radical prostatectomy. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease.
E. MRI Abdomen and Pelvis
Variant 1: Prostate cancer follow-up. Status post radical prostatectomy. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease.
F. TRUS-Guided Biopsy Prostatectomy Bed
Variant 1: Prostate cancer follow-up. Status post radical prostatectomy. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease.
G. MRI-Targeted Biopsy Prostatectomy Bed
Variant 1: Prostate cancer follow-up. Status post radical prostatectomy. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease.
H. TRUS Prostatectomy Bed
Variant 1: Prostate cancer follow-up. Status post radical prostatectomy. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease.
I. Choline PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh
Variant 1: Prostate cancer follow-up. Status post radical prostatectomy. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease.
J. Choline PET/MRI Skull base to Mid-Thigh
Variant 1: Prostate cancer follow-up. Status post radical prostatectomy. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease.
K. Fluciclovine PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh
Variant 1: Prostate cancer follow-up. Status post radical prostatectomy. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease.
L. Fluciclovine PET/MRI Skull Base to Mid-Thigh
Variant 1: Prostate cancer follow-up. Status post radical prostatectomy. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease.
M. Fluoride PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh
Variant 1: Prostate cancer follow-up. Status post radical prostatectomy. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease.
N. FDG-PET/CT
Variant 1: Prostate cancer follow-up. Status post radical prostatectomy. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease.
O. PSMA PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh
Variant 1: Prostate cancer follow-up. Status post radical prostatectomy. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease.
P. DCFPyL PET/CT Skull Base To Mid-Thigh
Variant 1: Prostate cancer follow-up. Status post radical prostatectomy. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease.
Q. Radiography Skeletal Survey
Variant 2: Prostate cancer follow-up. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease after nonsurgical local and pelvic treatments.
Variant 2: Prostate cancer follow-up. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease after nonsurgical local and pelvic treatments.
A. Bone Scan
Variant 2: Prostate cancer follow-up. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease after nonsurgical local and pelvic treatments.
B. CT Abdomen and Pelvis
Variant 2: Prostate cancer follow-up. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease after nonsurgical local and pelvic treatments.
C. CT Chest Abdomen and Pelvis
Variant 2: Prostate cancer follow-up. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease after nonsurgical local and pelvic treatments.
D. MRI Pelvis
Variant 2: Prostate cancer follow-up. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease after nonsurgical local and pelvic treatments.
E. MRI Abdomen and Pelvis
Variant 2: Prostate cancer follow-up. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease after nonsurgical local and pelvic treatments.
F. TRUS Prostate
Variant 2: Prostate cancer follow-up. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease after nonsurgical local and pelvic treatments.
G. TRUS-Guided Biopsy Prostate
Variant 2: Prostate cancer follow-up. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease after nonsurgical local and pelvic treatments.
H. MRI-Targeted Biopsy Prostate
Variant 2: Prostate cancer follow-up. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease after nonsurgical local and pelvic treatments.
I. Choline PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh
Variant 2: Prostate cancer follow-up. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease after nonsurgical local and pelvic treatments.
J. Choline PET/MRI Skull Base to Mid-Thigh
Variant 2: Prostate cancer follow-up. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease after nonsurgical local and pelvic treatments.
K. Fluciclovine PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh
Variant 2: Prostate cancer follow-up. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease after nonsurgical local and pelvic treatments.
L. Fluciclovine PET/MRI Skull Base to Mid-Thigh
Variant 2: Prostate cancer follow-up. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease after nonsurgical local and pelvic treatments.
M. Fluoride PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh
Variant 2: Prostate cancer follow-up. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease after nonsurgical local and pelvic treatments.
N. FDG-PET/CT
Variant 2: Prostate cancer follow-up. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease after nonsurgical local and pelvic treatments.
O. PSMA PET/CT Skull Base To Mid-Thigh
Variant 2: Prostate cancer follow-up. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease after nonsurgical local and pelvic treatments.
P. DCFPyL PET/CT Skull Base To Mid-Thigh
Variant 2: Prostate cancer follow-up. Clinical concern for residual or recurrent disease after nonsurgical local and pelvic treatments.
Q. Radiography Skeletal Survey
Variant 3: Metastatic prostate cancer treated by systemic therapy (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT], chemotherapy, immunotherapy). Follow-up.
Variant 3: Metastatic prostate cancer treated by systemic therapy (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT], chemotherapy, immunotherapy). Follow-up.
A. Bone Scan
Variant 3: Metastatic prostate cancer treated by systemic therapy (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT], chemotherapy, immunotherapy). Follow-up.
B. CT Chest Abdomen and Pelvis
Variant 3: Metastatic prostate cancer treated by systemic therapy (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT], chemotherapy, immunotherapy). Follow-up.
C. CT Abdomen and Pelvis 
Variant 3: Metastatic prostate cancer treated by systemic therapy (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT], chemotherapy, immunotherapy). Follow-up.
D. MRI Abdomen and Pelvis
Variant 3: Metastatic prostate cancer treated by systemic therapy (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT], chemotherapy, immunotherapy). Follow-up.
E. MRI Pelvis
Variant 3: Metastatic prostate cancer treated by systemic therapy (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT], chemotherapy, immunotherapy). Follow-up.
F. MRI-Targeted Biopsy Prostatectomy Bed
Variant 3: Metastatic prostate cancer treated by systemic therapy (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT], chemotherapy, immunotherapy). Follow-up.
G. Choline PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh
Variant 3: Metastatic prostate cancer treated by systemic therapy (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT], chemotherapy, immunotherapy). Follow-up.
H. Choline PET/MRI Skull Base to Mid-Thigh
Variant 3: Metastatic prostate cancer treated by systemic therapy (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT], chemotherapy, immunotherapy). Follow-up.
I. Fluoride PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh
Variant 3: Metastatic prostate cancer treated by systemic therapy (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT], chemotherapy, immunotherapy). Follow-up.
J. Fluciclovine PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh
Variant 3: Metastatic prostate cancer treated by systemic therapy (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT], chemotherapy, immunotherapy). Follow-up.
K. Fluciclovine PET/MRI Skull Base to Mid-Thigh
Variant 3: Metastatic prostate cancer treated by systemic therapy (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT], chemotherapy, immunotherapy). Follow-up.
L. FDG-PET/CT
Variant 3: Metastatic prostate cancer treated by systemic therapy (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT], chemotherapy, immunotherapy). Follow-up.
M. PSMA PET/CT Skull Base To Mid-Thigh
Variant 3: Metastatic prostate cancer treated by systemic therapy (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT], chemotherapy, immunotherapy). Follow-up.
N. DCFPyL PET/CT Skull Base To Mid-Thigh
Variant 3: Metastatic prostate cancer treated by systemic therapy (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT], chemotherapy, immunotherapy). Follow-up.
O. Radiography Skeletal Survey
Variant 3: Metastatic prostate cancer treated by systemic therapy (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT], chemotherapy, immunotherapy). Follow-up.
P. TRUS Prostatectomy Bed
Variant 3: Metastatic prostate cancer treated by systemic therapy (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT], chemotherapy, immunotherapy). Follow-up.
Q. TRUS-Guided Biopsy Prostatectomy Bed
Summary of Highlights
Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name

Appropriateness Rating

Appropriateness Category Definition

Usually Appropriate

7, 8, or 9

The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.

May Be Appropriate

4, 5, or 6

The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.

May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)

5

The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.

Usually Not Appropriate

1, 2, or 3

The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.
Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations

Relative Radiation Level*

Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range

Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range

O

0 mSv

 0 mSv

☢

<0.1 mSv

<0.03 mSv

☢☢

0.1-1 mSv

0.03-0.3 mSv

☢☢☢

1-10 mSv

0.3-3 mSv

☢☢☢☢

10-30 mSv

3-10 mSv

☢☢☢☢☢

30-100 mSv

10-30 mSv

*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”
References
1. Choueiri TK, Dreicer R, Paciorek A, Carroll PR, Konety B. A model that predicts the probability of positive imaging in prostate cancer cases with biochemical failure after initial definitive local therapy. J Urol. 2008;179(3):906-910; discussion 910.
2. Han M, Partin AW, Pound CR, Epstein JI, Walsh PC. Long-term biochemical disease-free and cancer-specific survival following anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy. The 15-year Johns Hopkins experience. Urol Clin North Am. 2001;28(3):555-565.
3. Teeter AE, Presti JC, Jr., Aronson WJ, et al. Do nomograms designed to predict biochemical recurrence (BCR) do a better job of predicting more clinically relevant prostate cancer outcomes than BCR? A report from the SEARCH database group. Urology. 2013;82(1):53-58.
4. Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, et al. 10-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(15):1415-1424.
5. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Prostate Cancer. Version 3.2020.  Available at: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf.
6. Cirillo S, Petracchini M, Scotti L, 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(3):761-769.
7. Khan MA, Partin AW. Management of patients with an increasing prostate-specific antigen after radical prostatectomy. Curr Urol Rep. 2004;5(3):179-187.
8. Kitajima K, Murphy RC, Nathan MA, et al. Detection of recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: comparison of 11C-choline PET/CT with pelvic multiparametric MR imaging with endorectal coil. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(2):223-232.
9. Sobol I, Zaid HB, Haloi R, et al. Contemporary Mapping of Post-Prostatectomy Prostate Cancer Relapse with 11C-Choline Positron Emission Tomography and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging. J Urol. 197(1):129-134, 2017 01.
10. Linder BJ, Kawashima A, Woodrum DA, et al. Early localization of recurrent prostate cancer after prostatectomy by endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging. Can J Urol. 21(3):7283-9, 2014 Jun.
11. Koo PJ, David Crawford E. 18F-NaF PET/CT and 11C-Choline PET/CT for the initial detection of metastatic disease in prostate cancer: overview and potential utilization. [Review]. Oncology (Williston). 28(12):1057-62, 1064-5, 2014 Dec.
12. Freitas JE, Gilvydas R, Ferry JD, Gonzalez JA. The clinical utility of prostate-specific antigen and bone scintigraphy in prostate cancer follow-up. J Nucl Med. 1991;32(7):1387-1390.
13. Miller PD, Eardley I, Kirby RS. Prostate specific antigen and bone scan correlation in the staging and monitoring of patients with prostatic cancer. Br J Urol. 1992;70(3):295-298.
14. Terris MK, Klonecke AS, McDougall IR, Stamey TA. Utilization of bone scans in conjunction with prostate-specific antigen levels in the surveillance for recurrence of adenocarcinoma after radical prostatectomy. J Nucl Med. 1991;32(9):1713-1717.
15. Evangelista L, Zattoni F, Karnes RJ, Novara G, Lowe V. Radiolabeled choline PET/CT before salvage lymphadenectomy dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. [Review]. Nucl Med Commun. 37(12):1223-1231, 2016 Dec.
16. Evangelista L, Briganti A, Fanti S, et al. New Clinical Indications for (18)F/(11)C-choline, New Tracers for Positron Emission Tomography and a Promising Hybrid Device for Prostate Cancer Staging: A Systematic Review of the Literature. [Review]. Eur Urol. 70(1):161-175, 2016 07.
17. Graziani T, Ceci F, Castellucci P, et al. (11)C-Choline PET/CT for restaging prostate cancer. Results from 4,426 scans in a single-centre patient series. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43(11):1971-1979.
18. Triggiani L, Alongi F, Buglione M, et al. Efficacy of stereotactic body radiotherapy in oligorecurrent and in oligoprogressive prostate cancer: new evidence from a multicentric study. Br J Cancer. 116(12):1520-1525, 2017 Jun 06.
19. Drudi FM, Giovagnorio F, Carbone A, et al. Transrectal colour Doppler contrast sonography in the diagnosis of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy--comparison with MRI. Ultraschall Med. 2006;27(2):146-151.
20. Kane CJ, Amling CL, Johnstone PA, et al. Limited value of bone scintigraphy and computed tomography in assessing biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2003;61(3):607-611.
21. Cher ML, Bianco FJ, Jr., Lam JS, et al. Limited role of radionuclide bone scintigraphy in patients with prostate specific antigen elevations after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 1998;160(4):1387-1391.
22. American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. PSA Testing for the Pretreatment Staging and Posttreatment Management of Prostate Cancer: Published 2009; Amended 2013.  Available at: https://www.auanet.org//guidelines/prostate-specific-antigen-(psa)-best-practice-statement.
23. Thompson IM, Valicenti RK, Albertsen P, et al. Adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy after prostatectomy: AUA/ASTRO Guideline. J Urol. 2013;190(2):441-449.
24. Loeb S, Makarov DV, Schaeffer EM, Humphreys EB, Walsh PC. Prostate specific antigen at the initial diagnosis of metastasis to bone in patients after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2010;184(1):157-161.
25. Wondergem M, van der Zant FM, van der Ploeg T, Knol RJ. 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. [Review]. Nucl Med Commun. 34(10):935-45, 2013 Oct.
26. Fortuin AS, Deserno WM, Meijer HJ, et al. Value of PET/CT and MR lymphography in treatment of prostate cancer patients with lymph node metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 84(3):712-8, 2012 Nov 01.
27. Hricak H, Schoder H, Pucar D, et al. Advances in imaging in the postoperative patient with a rising prostate-specific antigen level. Semin Oncol. 2003;30(5):616-634.
28. Beresford MJ, Gillatt D, Benson RJ, Ajithkumar T. A systematic review of the role of imaging before salvage radiotherapy for post-prostatectomy biochemical recurrence. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2010;22(1):46-55.
29. Rouviere O, Vitry T, Lyonnet D. Imaging of prostate cancer local recurrences: why and how? Eur Radiol. 2010;20(5):1254-1266.
30. Casciani E, Polettini E, Carmenini E, et al. Endorectal and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for detection of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190(5):1187-1192.
31. Sciarra A, Panebianco V, Salciccia S, et al. Role of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging in the detection of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2008;54(3):589-600.
32. Sella T, Schwartz LH, Swindle PW, et al. Suspected local recurrence after radical prostatectomy: endorectal coil MR imaging. Radiology. 2004;231(2):379-385.
33. Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Sciarra A, et al. Prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy: the role of 3-T diffusion imaging in multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(6):1745-1752.
34. Daldrup-Link HE, Franzius C, Link TM, et al. Whole-body MR imaging for detection of bone metastases in children and young adults: comparison with skeletal scintigraphy and FDG PET. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177(1):229-236.
35. Goudarzi B, Kishimoto R, Komatsu S, et al. Detection of bone metastases using diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging: comparison with (11)C-methionine PET and bone scintigraphy. Magn Reson Imaging. 28(3):372-9, 2010 Apr.
36. Gutzeit A, Doert A, Froehlich JM, et al. Comparison of diffusion-weighted whole body MRI and skeletal scintigraphy for the detection of bone metastases in patients with prostate or breast carcinoma. Skeletal Radiol. 39(4):333-43, 2010 Apr.
37. Turner JW, Hawes DR, Williams RD. Magnetic resonance imaging for detection of prostate cancer metastatic to bone. J Urol. 1993;149(6):1482-1484.
38. Roy C, Foudi F, Charton J, et al. Comparative sensitivities of functional MRI sequences in detection of local recurrence of prostate carcinoma after radical prostatectomy or external-beam radiotherapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(4):W361-368.
39. Wu LM, Xu JR, Gu HY, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of local prostate cancer recurrence after external beam radiotherapy and radical prostatectomy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2013;25(4):252-264.
40. Robertson NL, Sala E, Benz M, et al. Combined Whole Body and Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging as a 1-Step Approach to the Simultaneous Assessment of Local Recurrence and Metastatic Disease after Radical Prostatectomy. J Urol. 198(1):65-70, 2017 07.
41. Deliveliotis C, Manousakas T, Chrisofos M, Skolarikos A, Delis A, Dimopoulos C. Diagnostic efficacy of transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostatic fossa in patients with rising PSA following radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2007;25(3):309-313.
42. Sudakoff GS, Smith R, Vogelzang NJ, Steinberg G, Brendler CB. Color Doppler imaging and transrectal sonography of the prostatic fossa after radical prostatectomy: early experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167(4):883-888.
43. Tamsel S, Killi R, Apaydin E, Hekimgil M, Demirpolat G. The potential value of power Doppler ultrasound imaging compared with grey-scale ultrasound findings in the diagnosis of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Clin Radiol. 2006;61(4):325-330; discussion 323-324.
44. Evangelista L, Zattoni F, Guttilla A, Saladini G, Colletti PM, Rubello D. Choline PET or PET/CT and biochemical relapse of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Nucl Med. 2013;38(5):305-314.
45. Umbehr MH, Muntener M, Hany T, Sulser T, Bachmann LM. 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. 2013;64(1):106-117.
46. Mitchell CR, Lowe VJ, Rangel LJ, Hung JC, Kwon ED, Karnes RJ. Operational characteristics of (11)c-choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for prostate cancer with biochemical recurrence after initial treatment. J Urol. 2013;189(4):1308-1313.
47. Oderda M, Joniau S, Palazzetti A, et al. Is 11C-choline Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Accurate to Detect Nodal Relapses of Prostate Cancer After Biochemical Recurrence? A Multicentric Study Based on Pathologic Confirmation from Salvage Lymphadenectomy. Eur Urol Focus. 4(2):288-293, 2018 03.
48. Fuccio C, Castellucci P, Schiavina R, et al. Role of 11C-choline PET/CT in the re-staging of prostate cancer patients with biochemical relapse and negative results at bone scintigraphy. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(8):e893-896.
49. Breeuwsma AJ, Rybalov M, Leliveld AM, Pruim J, de Jong IJ. Correlation of [11C]choline PET-CT with time to treatment and disease-specific survival in men with recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;56(5):440-446.
50. Castellucci P, Fuccio C, Nanni C, et al. Influence of trigger PSA and PSA kinetics on 11C-Choline PET/CT detection rate in patients with biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(9):1394-1400.
51. Giovacchini G, Picchio M, Coradeschi E, et al. Predictive factors of [(11)C]choline PET/CT in patients with biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37(2):301-309.
52. Giovacchini G, Picchio M, Scattoni V, et al. PSA doubling time for prediction of [(11)C]choline PET/CT findings in prostate cancer patients with biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37(6):1106-1116.
53. Krause BJ, Souvatzoglou M, Tuncel M, et al. The detection rate of [11C]choline-PET/CT depends on the serum PSA-value in patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35(1):18-23.
54. Kwee SA, Coel MN, Lim J. Detection of recurrent prostate cancer with 18F-fluorocholine PET/CT in relation to PSA level at the time of imaging. Ann Nucl Med. 2012;26(6):501-507.
55. Gomez-de la Fuente FJ, Martinez-Rodriguez I, De Arcocha-Torres M, et al. Effect of positive carbon-11-choline PET/CT results in the therapeutic management of prostate cancer biochemical relapse. Nucl Med Commun. 40(1):79-85, 2019 Jan.
56. Gillebert Q, Huchet V, Rousseau C, et al. 18F-fluorocholine PET/CT in patients with occult biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer: Detection rate, impact on management and adequacy of impact. A prospective multicentre study. PLoS ONE. 13(2):e0191487, 2018.
57. Goldstein J, Even-Sapir E, Ben-Haim S, et al. Does Choline PET/CT Change the Management of Prostate Cancer Patients With Biochemical Failure?. Am J Clin Oncol. 40(3):256-259, 2017 Jun.
58. Eiber M, Rauscher I, Souvatzoglou M, et al. Prospective head-to-head comparison of 11C-choline-PET/MR and 11C-choline-PET/CT for restaging of biochemical recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 44(13):2179-2188, 2017 Dec.
59. Odewole OA, Tade FI, Nieh PT, et al. Recurrent prostate cancer detection with anti-3-[(18)F]FACBC PET/CT: comparison with CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 43(10):1773-83, 2016 Sep.
60. Nanni C, Schiavina R, Boschi S, et al. Comparison of 18F-FACBC and 11C-choline PET/CT in patients with radically treated prostate cancer and biochemical relapse: preliminary results. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40 Suppl 1:S11-17.
61. Nanni C, Schiavina R, Brunocilla E, et al. 18F-Fluciclovine PET/CT for the Detection of Prostate Cancer Relapse: A Comparison to 11C-Choline PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med. 2015;40(8):e386-391.
62. Nanni C, Zanoni L, Pultrone C, et al. (18)F-FACBC (anti1-amino-3-(18)F-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid) versus (11)C-choline PET/CT in prostate cancer relapse: results of a prospective trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 43(9):1601-10, 2016 Aug.
63. Ren J, Yuan L, Wen G, Yang J. The value of anti-1-amino-3-18F-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid PET/CT in the diagnosis of recurrent prostate carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Acta Radiol. 57(4):487-93, 2016 Apr.
64. Bach-Gansmo T, Nanni C, Nieh PT, et al. Multisite Experience of the Safety, Detection Rate and Diagnostic Performance of Fluciclovine (18F) Positron Emission Tomography/Computerized Tomography Imaging in the Staging of Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 197(3 Pt 1):676-683, 2017 03.
65. England JR, Paluch J, Ballas LK, Jadvar H. 18F-Fluciclovine PET/CT Detection of Recurrent Prostate Carcinoma in Patients With Serum PSA <= 1 ng/mL After Definitive Primary Treatment. Clin Nucl Med. 44(3):e128-e132, 2019 Mar.
66. Savir-Baruch B, Lovrec P, Solanki AA, et al. Fluorine-18-Labeled Fluciclovine PET/CT in Clinical Practice: Factors Affecting the Rate of Detection of Recurrent Prostate Cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 213(4):851-858, 2019 10.
67. Andriole GL, Kostakoglu L, Chau A, et al. The Impact of Positron Emission Tomography with 18F-Fluciclovine on the Treatment of Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer: Results from the LOCATE Trial. J Urol. 201(2):322-331, 2019 02.
68. Abiodun-Ojo OA, Jani AB, Akintayo AA, et al. Salvage Radiotherapy Management Decisions in Postprostatectomy Patients with Recurrent Prostate Cancer Based on 18F-Fluciclovine PET/CT Guidance. J Nucl Med. 62(8):1089-1096, 2021 Aug 01.
69. Jani A, Schreibmann E, Goyal S, et al. Initial Report of a Randomized Trial Comparing Conventional- vs Conventional plus Fluciclovine (18F) PET/CT Imaging-Guided Post-Prostatectomy Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 108(5):1397, 2020 12 01.
70. Albrecht S, Buchegger F, Soloviev D, et al. (11)C-acetate PET in the early evaluation of prostate cancer recurrence. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34(2):185-196.
71. Oyama N, Miller TR, Dehdashti F, et al. 11C-acetate PET imaging of prostate cancer: detection of recurrent disease at PSA relapse. J Nucl Med. 2003;44(4):549-555.
72. Cimitan M, Bortolus R, Morassut S, et al. [18F]fluorocholine PET/CT imaging for the detection of recurrent prostate cancer at PSA relapse: experience in 100 consecutive patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33(12):1387-1398.
73. Heinisch M, Dirisamer A, Loidl W, et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography with F-18-fluorocholine for restaging of prostate cancer patients: meaningful at PSA < 5 ng/ml? Mol Imaging Biol. 2006;8(1):43-48.
74. Husarik DB, Miralbell R, Dubs M, et al. Evaluation of [(18)F]-choline PET/CT for staging and restaging of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35(2):253-263.
75. Ferda J, Ferdova E, Baxa J, Finek J, Topolcan O. 18F-Fluorocholine PET/MRI in Restaging of Prostatic Carcinoma in Relation to PSA Level and Detection of Active Disease. Anticancer Res. 38(7):4139-4143, 2018 Jul.
76. Afshar-Oromieh A, Babich JW, Kratochwil C, et al. The Rise of PSMA Ligands for Diagnosis and Therapy of Prostate Cancer. J Nucl Med. 2016;57(Suppl 3):79S-89S.
77. Rowe SP, Drzezga A, Neumaier B, et al. Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen-Targeted Radiohalogenated PET and Therapeutic Agents for Prostate Cancer. J Nucl Med. 2016;57(Suppl 3):90S-96S.
78. Schuster DM, Votaw JR, Nieh PT, 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(1):56-63.
79. Schoder H, Herrmann K, Gonen M, et al. 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography for the detection of disease in patients with prostate-specific antigen relapse after radical prostatectomy. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11(13):4761-4769.
80. Shreve PD, Grossman HB, Gross MD, Wahl RL. Metastatic prostate cancer: initial findings of PET with 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose. Radiology. 1996;199(3):751-756.
81. Ghanem N, Uhl M, Brink I, et al. Diagnostic value of MRI in comparison to scintigraphy, PET, MS-CT and PET/CT for the detection of metastases of bone. [Review] [86 refs]. Eur J Radiol. 55(1):41-55, 2005 Jul.
82. FDA News Release. FDA Approves First PSMA-Targeted PET Imaging Drug for Men with Prostate Cancer.  Available at: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-psma-targeted-pet-imaging-drug-men-prostate-cancer.
83. Fendler WP, Calais J, Eiber M, et al. Assessment of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET Accuracy in Localizing Recurrent Prostate Cancer: A Prospective Single-Arm Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 5(6):856-863, 2019 Jun 01.
84. Schwenck J, Rempp H, Reischl G, et al. Comparison of 68Ga-labelled PSMA-11 and 11C-choline in the detection of prostate cancer metastases by PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 44(1):92-101, 2017 Jan.
85. Calais J, Ceci F, Eiber M, et al. 18F-fluciclovine PET-CT and 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET-CT in patients with early biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy: a prospective, single-centre, single-arm, comparative imaging trial. Lancet Oncol. 20(9):1286-1294, 2019 09.
86. Pernthaler B, Kulnik R, Gstettner C, Salamon S, Aigner RM, Kvaternik H. A Prospective Head-to-Head Comparison of 18F-Fluciclovine With 68Ga-PSMA-11 in Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer in PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med. 44(10):e566-e573, 2019 Oct.
87. Kesch C, Kratochwil C, Mier W, Kopka K, Giesel FL. (68)Ga or (18)F for Prostate Cancer Imaging? J Nucl Med 2017;58:687-88.
88. U.S. FDA. FDA approves Pluvicto for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.  Available at: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-approves-pluvicto-metastatic-castration-resistant-prostate-cancer.
89. Dietlein F, Kobe C, Neubauer S, et al. PSA-Stratified Performance of 18F- and 68Ga-PSMA PET in Patients with Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer. J Nucl Med. 58(6):947-952, 2017 06.
90. Rowe SP, Campbell SP, Mana-Ay M, et al. Prospective Evaluation of PSMA-Targeted 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT in Men with Biochemical Failure After Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer. J Nucl Med. 61(1):58-61, 2020 01.
91. Sun J, Lin Y, Wei X, Ouyang J, Huang Y, Ling Z. Performance of 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT Imaging in Early Detection of Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front. oncol.. 11:649171, 2021.
92. Mena E, Lindenberg ML, Turkbey IB, et al. 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT Imaging in Patients with Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer After Primary Local Therapy. J Nucl Med. 61(6):881-889, 2020 06.
93. Nudell DM, Wefer AE, Hricak H, Carroll PR. Imaging for recurrent prostate cancer. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000;38(1):213-229.
94. Roach M, 3rd, Hanks G, Thames H, Jr., et al. Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65(4):965-974.
95. Nguyen PL, D'Amico AV, Lee AK, Suh WW. Patient selection, cancer control, and complications after salvage local therapy for postradiation prostate-specific antigen failure: a systematic review of the literature. Cancer. 2007;110(7):1417-1428.
96. Caloglu M, Ciezki J. Prostate-specific antigen bounce after prostate brachytherapy: review of a confusing phenomenon. Urology. 2009;74(6):1183-1190.
97. Vicini FA, Vargas C, Abner A, Kestin L, Horwitz E, Martinez A. Limitations in the use of serum prostate specific antigen levels to monitor patients after treatment for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2005;173(5):1456-1462.
98. Cotter SE, Chen MH, Moul JW, et al. Salvage radiation in men after prostate-specific antigen failure and the risk of death. Cancer. 2011;117(17):3925-3932.
99. Catalona WJ, Smith DS. 5-year tumor recurrence rates after anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol. 1994;152(5 Pt 2):1837-1842.
100. Epstein JI, Pizov G, Walsh PC. Correlation of pathologic findings with progression after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer. 1993;71(11):3582-3593.
101. Kupelian PA, Katcher J, Levin HS, Klein EA. Stage T1-2 prostate cancer: a multivariate analysis of factors affecting biochemical and clinical failures after radical prostatectomy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997;37(5):1043-1052.
102. Lowe BA, Lieberman SF. Disease recurrence and progression in untreated pathologic stage T3 prostate cancer: selecting the patient for adjuvant therapy. J Urol. 1997;158(4):1452-1456.
103. Pound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, Chan DW, Pearson JD, Walsh PC. Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 1999;281(17):1591-1597.
104. Swindle P, Eastham JA, Ohori M, et al. Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2005;174(3):903-907.
105. Zietman AL, Edelstein RA, Coen JJ, Babayan RK, Krane RJ. Radical prostatectomy for adenocarcinoma of the prostate: the influence of preoperative and pathologic findings on biochemical disease-free outcome. Urology. 1994;43(6):828-833.
106. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Carroll PR. Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(7):1117-1123.
107. Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y, et al. Locally recurrent prostate cancer after high-dose-rate brachytherapy: the value of diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, and T2-weighted imaging in localizing tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(2):408-414.
108. Coakley FV, Teh HS, Qayyum A, et al. Endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging for locally recurrent prostate cancer after external beam radiation therapy: preliminary experience. Radiology. 2004;233(2):441-448.
109. Pucar D, Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, et al. Prostate cancer: correlation of MR imaging and MR spectroscopy with pathologic findings after radiation therapy-initial experience. Radiology. 2005;236(2):545-553.
110. Westphalen AC, Coakley FV, Roach M, 3rd, 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(2):485-492.
111. Haider MA, Chung P, Sweet J, 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(2):425-430.
112. Kim CK, Park BK, Park W, Kim SS. Prostate MR imaging at 3T using a phased-arrayed coil in predicting locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiation therapy: preliminary experience. Abdom Imaging. 2010;35(2):246-252.
113. Rouviere O, Valette O, Grivolat S, et al. Recurrent prostate cancer after external beam radiotherapy: value of contrast-enhanced dynamic MRI in localizing intraprostatic tumor--correlation with biopsy findings. Urology. 2004;63(5):922-927.
114. 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(2):391-397.
115. Pucar D, Hricak H, Shukla-Dave A, et al. Clinically significant prostate cancer local recurrence after radiation therapy occurs at the site of primary tumor: magnetic resonance imaging and step-section pathology evidence. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;69(1):62-69.
116. Zattoni F, Kawashima A, Morlacco A, et al. Detection of recurrent prostate cancer after primary radiation therapy: An evaluation of the role of multiparametric 3T magnetic resonance imaging with endorectal coil. Pract Radiat Oncol. 7(1):42-49, 2017 Jan - Feb.
117. Valle LF, Greer MD, Shih JH, et al. Multiparametric MRI for the detection of local recurrence of prostate cancer in the setting of biochemical recurrence after low dose rate brachytherapy. Diagn Interv Radiol. 24(1):46-53, 2018 Jan-Feb.
118. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Hindley RG, et al. Prostate-specific antigen vs. magnetic resonance imaging parameters for assessing oncological outcomes after high intensity-focused ultrasound focal therapy for localized prostate cancer. UROL. ONCOL.. 35(1):30.e9-30.e15, 2017 01.
119. Thompson JE, Sridhar AN, Tan WS, et al. Pathological Findings and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Concordance at Salvage Radical Prostatectomy for Local Recurrence following Partial Ablation Using High Intensity Focused Ultrasound. J Urol. 201(6):1134-1143, 2019 06.
120. Felker ER, Raman SS, Lu DSK, et al. Utility of Multiparametric MRI for Predicting Residual Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer After Focal Laser Ablation. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 213(6):1253-1258, 2019 12.
121. Crook J, Robertson S, Collin G, Zaleski V, Esche B. Clinical relevance of trans-rectal ultrasound, biopsy, and serum prostate-specific antigen following external beam radiotherapy for carcinoma of the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993;27(1):31-37.
122. D'Amico AV, Crook J, Beard CJ, DeWeese TL, Hurwitz M, Kaplan I. “Radiation therapy for prostate cancer”. In: Walsh PC, Retik AB, eds. Campbell's Urology. 8th ed. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 2002:3147-3170.
123. Crook J, Malone S, Perry G, Bahadur Y, Robertson S, Abdolell M. Postradiotherapy prostate biopsies: what do they really mean? Results for 498 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;48(2):355-367.
124. Parker WP, Davis BJ, Park SS, et al. Identification of Site-specific Recurrence Following Primary Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer Using C-11 Choline Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography: A Nomogram for Predicting Extrapelvic Disease. Eur Urol. 71(3):340-348, 2017 03.
125. Parker WP, Evans JD, Stish BJ, et al. Patterns of Recurrence After Postprostatectomy Fossa Radiation Therapy Identified by C-11 Choline Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 97(3):526-535, 2017 03 01.
126. Kairemo K, Rasulova N, Partanen K, Joensuu T. Preliminary clinical experience of trans-1-Amino-3-(18)F-fluorocyclobutanecarboxylic Acid (anti-(18)F-FACBC) PET/CT imaging in prostate cancer patients. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:305182.
127. Akin-Akintayo O, Tade F, Mittal P, et al. Prospective evaluation of fluciclovine (18F) PET-CT and MRI in detection of recurrent prostate cancer in non-prostatectomy patients. Eur J Radiol. 102:1-8, 2018 May.
128. Abiodun-Ojo OA, Akintayo AA, Akin-Akintayo OO, et al. 18F-Fluciclovine Parameters on Targeted Prostate Biopsy Associated with True Positivity in Recurrent Prostate Cancer. J Nucl Med. 60(11):1531-1536, 2019 11.
129. Pfister D, Haidl F, Nestler T, et al. 68 Ga-PSMA-PET/CT helps to select patients for salvage radical prostatectomy with local recurrence after primary radiotherapy for prostate cancer. BJU Int. 126(6):679-683, 2020 12.
130. Risk M, Corman JM. The role of immunotherapy in prostate cancer: an overview of current approaches in development. Risk, M. 2009;11(1):16-27.
131. Scher HI, Halabi S, Tannock I, et al. Design and end points of clinical trials for patients with progressive prostate cancer and castrate levels of testosterone: recommendations of the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group. Scher, H. I. 2008;26(7):1148-1159.
132. Lipton A. Implications of bone metastases and the benefits of bone-targeted therapy. Lipton, A. 2010;37 Suppl 2:S15-29.
133. Halabi S, Small EJ, Kantoff PW, et al. Prognostic model for predicting survival in men with hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer. Scher, H. I. 2003;21(7):1232-1237.
134. Evangelista L, Bertoldo F, Boccardo F, et al. Diagnostic imaging to detect and evaluate response to therapy in bone metastases from prostate cancer: current modalities and new horizons. [Review]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 43(8):1546-62, 2016 Jul.
135. Kaur H, Hindman NM, Al-Refaie WB, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Suspected Liver Metastases. J Am Coll Radiol 2017;14:S314-S25.
136. Ceci F, Castellucci P, Graziani T, et al. (11)C-Choline PET/CT in castration-resistant prostate cancer patients treated with docetaxel. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43(1):84-91.
137. De Giorgi U, Caroli P, Burgio SL, et al. Early outcome prediction on 18F-fluorocholine PET/CT in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients treated with abiraterone. Oncotarget. 2014;5(23):12448-12458.
138. De Giorgi U, Caroli P, Scarpi E, et al. (18)F-Fluorocholine PET/CT for early response assessment in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with enzalutamide. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42(8):1276-1283.
139. Maines F, Caffo O, Donner D, et al. Serial 18F-choline-PET imaging in patients receiving enzalutamide for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: response assessment and imaging biomarkers. Fut Oncol. 12(3):333-42, 2016 Feb.
140. Zhou J, Gou Z, Wu R, Yuan Y, Yu G, Zhao Y. Comparison of PSMA-PET/CT, choline-PET/CT, NaF-PET/CT, MRI, and bone scintigraphy in the diagnosis of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Skeletal Radiol. 48(12):1915-1924, 2019 Dec.
141. Sheikhbahaei S, Jones KM, Werner RA, et al. 18F-NaF-PET/CT for the detection of bone metastasis in prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Nucl Med. 33(5):351-361, 2019 May.
142. Okudaira H, Oka S, Ono M, et al. Accumulation of trans-1-amino-3-[(18)F]fluorocyclobutanecarboxylic acid in prostate cancer due to androgen-induced expression of amino acid transporters. Mol Imaging Biol. 2014;16(6):756-764.
143. Ono M, Oka S, Okudaira H, et al. [(14)C]Fluciclovine (alias anti-[(14)C]FACBC) uptake and ASCT2 expression in castration-resistant prostate cancer cells. Nucl Med Biol. 2015;42(11):887-892.
144. Malviya G, Patel R, Salji M, et al. 18F-Fluciclovine PET metabolic imaging reveals prostate cancer tumour heterogeneity associated with disease resistance to androgen deprivation therapy. EJNMMI Res. 10(1):143, 2020 Nov 25.
145. Chen B, Wei P, Macapinlac HA, Lu Y. Comparison of 18F-Fluciclovine PET/CT and 99mTc-MDP bone scan in detection of bone metastasis in prostate cancer. Nucl Med Commun. 40(9):940-946, 2019 Sep.
146. Galgano SJ, McDonald AM, Rais-Bahrami S, et al. Utility of 18F-Fluciclovine PET/MRI for Staging Newly Diagnosed High-Risk Prostate Cancer and Evaluating Response to Initial Androgen Deprivation Therapy: A Prospective Single-Arm Pilot Study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1-10, 2021 Jul 22.
147. Jadvar H. PET of Glucose Metabolism and Cellular Proliferation in Prostate Cancer. [Review]. J Nucl Med. 57(Suppl 3):25S-29S, 2016 Oct.
148. Liu J, Chen Z, Wang T, et al. Influence of Four Radiotracers in PET/CT on Diagnostic Accuracy for Prostate Cancer: A Bivariate Random-Effects Meta-Analysis. Cell Physiol Biochem. 39(2):467-80, 2016.
149. Seltzer MA, Barbaric Z, Belldegrun A, et al. Comparison of helical computerized tomography, positron emission tomography and monoclonal antibody scans for evaluation of lymph node metastases in patients with prostate specific antigen relapse after treatment for localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 1999;162(4):1322-1328.
150. Meirelles GS, Schoder H, Ravizzini GC, et al. Prognostic value of baseline [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and 99mTc-MDP bone scan in progressing metastatic prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 16(24):6093-9, 2010 Dec 15.
151. Morris MJ, Akhurst T, Larson SM, et al. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography as an outcome measure for castrate metastatic prostate cancer treated with antimicrotubule chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11(9):3210-3216.
152. Morris MJ, Akhurst T, Osman I, et al. Fluorinated deoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging in progressive metastatic prostate cancer. Urology. 2002;59(6):913-918.
153. Thomas L, Balmus C, Ahmadzadehfar H, Essler M, Strunk H, Bundschuh RA. Assessment of Bone Metastases in Patients with Prostate Cancer-A Comparison between 99mTc-Bone-Scintigraphy and [68Ga]Ga-PSMA PET/CT. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 10(3), 2017 Jul 31.
154. Madsen C, Ostergren P, Haarmark C. The Value of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT Following Equivocal 18F-NaF PET/CT in Prostate Cancer Patients. Diagnostics (Basel). 10(6), 2020 May 28.
155. Rowe SP, Li X, Trock BJ, et al. Prospective Comparison of PET Imaging with PSMA-Targeted 18F-DCFPyL Versus Na18F for Bone Lesion Detection in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer. J Nucl Med. 61(2):183-188, 2020 02.
156. Markowski MC, Velho PI, Eisenberger MA, et al. Detection of Early Progression with 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT in Men with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Receiving Bipolar Androgen Therapy. J Nucl Med. 2021 Jan 15.
157. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.
Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.