[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]

Value-based Imaging in Early Prostate Cancer Staging

Learning Objectives:
At the end of this activity, you will be able to:
1. Understand successful communication practices with radiologists/referring physicians related to ordering imaging;
2. Demonstrate understanding of image ordering best practices;
3. Apply evidence-based recommendations into image ordering decision-making.
0.5 Credit CME

Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates

Audio Information

Authors:

Steven Eberhardt, MD, Professor and Vice Chair of Clinical Operations, Chief of Oncologic Imaging, Department of Radiology, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, University of New Mexico, Comprehensive Cancer Center

Thomas M. Schroeder, MD, Associate Director, Director of Radiation Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, University of New Mexico, Comprehensive Cancer Center

Designation Statement: The American College of Radiology designates this enduring material for a maximum of 0.5 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. You must achieve a minimum score of 80% to receive credit. Estimated time to complete the enduring material is 30 minutes.

Only physicians are eligible to be awarded AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™. The AMA defines physicians as those individuals who have obtained an MD, DO, or equivalent medical degree from another country.

Statement of Competency: This activity is designed to address the following ABMS/ACGME competencies: interpersonal & communication skills and medical knowledge.

Accreditation Statement: The American College of Radiology is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.

Disclosure Statement: In compliance with ACCME requirements and guidelines, the ACR has developed a policy for review and disclosure of potential conflicts of interest, and a method of resolution if a conflict does exist. The ACR maintains a tradition of scientific integrity and objectivity in its educational activities. In order to preserve this integrity and objectivity, all individuals participating as planners, presenters, moderators, and evaluators in an ACR educational activity or an activity jointly sponsored by the ACR must appropriately disclose any financial relationship with a commercial organization that may have an interest in the content of the educational activity.

The following faculty indicated that they have no relevant financial relationships related to the presentation of this material:

Steven Eberhardt, MD

Thomas M. Schroeder, MD

ACR staff have indicated that they have no relevant financial relationships related to this educational activity.

Renewal Date: June 1, 2019

References
1.
Eberhardt  SC, Carter  S, Casalino  DD,  et al.  ACR appropriateness criteria prostate cancer—pretreatment detection, staging, and surveillance.  JACR. 2013:10(2):83–92.Google Scholar
2.
Abuzallouf  S, Dayes  I, Lukka  H.  Baseline staging of newly diagnosed prostate cancer: a summary of the literature.  The Journal of Urology. 2004;171(6):2122–2127.Google Scholar
3.
Lavery  HJ, Brajtbord  JS, Levinson  AW, Nabizada-Pace  F, Pollard  ME, Samadi  DB.  Unnecessary imaging for the staging of low-risk prostate cancer is common.  Urology. 2011;77(2):274–278.Google Scholar
4.
Guo  R, Cai  L, Fan  Y, Jin  J, Zhou  L, Zhang  K.  Magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates with low-risk prostate cancer: a diagnostic meta-analysis.  Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases. 2015;18(3):221–228.Google Scholar
5.
Mullins  JK, Bonekamp  D, Landis  P,  et al.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings in men with low-risk prostate cancer followed using active surveillance.  BJU International. 2013:111(7);1037–1045.Google Scholar
6.
Augustin  H, Fritz  GA, Ehammer  T, Auprich  M, Pummer  K.  Accuracy of 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging for the staging of prostate cancer in comparison to the Partin tables.  Acta Radiol. 2009;50(5):562–569.Google Scholar
7.
Bloch  BN, Furman-Haran  E, Helbich  TH,  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(1):176–185.Google Scholar
8.
Hricak  H, Wang  L, Wei  DC,  et al.  The role of preoperative endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in the decision regarding whether to preserve or resect neurovascular bundles during radical retropubic prostatectomy.  Cancer. 2004;100(12):2655–2663.Google Scholar
9.
Huncharek  M, Muscat  J.  Serum prostate-specific antigen as a predictor of radiographic staging studies in newly diagnosed prostate cancer.  Cancer Investigation. 1995;13(1):31–35.Google Scholar
10.
Özgür  BC, Gültekin  S, Ekici  M, Yılmazer  D, Alper  M.  A narrowing range of bone scan in newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients: A retrospective comparative study.  Urology Annals. 2015;7(2):193.Google Scholar
11.
Gandaglia  G, Abdollah  F, Schiffmann  J,  et al.  Distribution of metastatic sites in patients with prostate cancer: a population-based analysis.  Prostate. 2014;74(2):210–216.Google Scholar
12.
Risko  R, Merdan  S, Womble  PR,  et al.  Clinical predictors and recommendations for staging computed tomography scan among men with prostate cancer.  Urology. 2014;84(6):1329–1334.Google Scholar

Name Your Search

Save Search

Lookup An Activity

or

My Saved Searches

You currently have no searches saved.

Topics
State Requirements