PURPOSE: An increase of the serum PSA-level is a sensitive in vitro marker for recurrent prostate cancer. However, it remains difficult to differentiate between local, regional or distant recurrent disease. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between the detection rate of [(11)C]Choline-PET/CT and the serum PSA-level in patients with a biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer with the view towards localisation of recurrent disease. METHODS: Sixty-three patients (mean age, 68.8 +/- 6.9; range, 45-83 years) with biochemical recurrence after primary therapy for prostate cancer were included in the analysis. Mean PSA-levels were 5.9 +/- 9.7 ng/ml (range, 0.2-39 ng/ml; median, 2.15). Of the 63 patients, 17 were under anti-androgen therapy at the time of [(11)C]Choline PET/CT. Patients underwent a [(11)C]Choline-PET/CT study after injection of 656 +/- 119 MBq [(11)C]Choline on a Sensation 16 Biograph PET/CT scanner. RESULTS: Of the 63 patients, 35 (56%) showed a pathological [(11)C]Choline uptake. The detection rate of [(11)C]Choline-PET/CT showed a relationship with the serum PSA-level: The detection rate was 36% for a PSA-value <1 ng/ml, 43% for a PSA-value 1-<2 ng/ml, 62% for a PSA-value 2-<3 ng/ml and 73% for a PSA-value >or=3 ng/ml. Anti-androgen therapy did not show a significant effect on the detection rate of [(11)C]Choline-PET/CT (p = 0.374). CONCLUSION: As an important result our study shows that even for PSA-values <1.0 ng/ml the detection efficiency of [(11)C]Choline-PET/CT is 36%. Furthermore, the detection rate of [(11)C]Choline-PET/CT shows a positive relationship with serum PSA-levels in patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after primary therapy. Therefore, in these patients, [(11)C]Choline PET/CT allows not only to diagnose but also to localise recurrent disease with implications on disease management (localised vs systemic therapy).
PURPOSE: An increase of the serum PSA-level is a sensitive in vitro marker for recurrent prostate cancer. However, it remains difficult to differentiate between local, regional or distant recurrent disease. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between the detection rate of [(11)C]Choline-PET/CT and the serum PSA-level in patients with a biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer with the view towards localisation of recurrent disease. METHODS: Sixty-three patients (mean age, 68.8 +/- 6.9; range, 45-83 years) with biochemical recurrence after primary therapy for prostate cancer were included in the analysis. Mean PSA-levels were 5.9 +/- 9.7 ng/ml (range, 0.2-39 ng/ml; median, 2.15). Of the 63 patients, 17 were under anti-androgen therapy at the time of [(11)C]Choline PET/CT. Patients underwent a [(11)C]Choline-PET/CT study after injection of 656 +/- 119 MBq [(11)C]Choline on a Sensation 16 Biograph PET/CT scanner. RESULTS: Of the 63 patients, 35 (56%) showed a pathological [(11)C]Choline uptake. The detection rate of [(11)C]Choline-PET/CT showed a relationship with the serum PSA-level: The detection rate was 36% for a PSA-value <1 ng/ml, 43% for a PSA-value 1-<2 ng/ml, 62% for a PSA-value 2-<3 ng/ml and 73% for a PSA-value >or=3 ng/ml. Anti-androgen therapy did not show a significant effect on the detection rate of [(11)C]Choline-PET/CT (p = 0.374). CONCLUSION: As an important result our study shows that even for PSA-values <1.0 ng/ml the detection efficiency of [(11)C]Choline-PET/CT is 36%. Furthermore, the detection rate of [(11)C]Choline-PET/CT shows a positive relationship with serum PSA-levels in patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after primary therapy. Therefore, in these patients, [(11)C]Choline PET/CT allows not only to diagnose but also to localise recurrent disease with implications on disease management (localised vs systemic therapy).
Authors: Nobuyuki Oyama; Tom R Miller; Farrokh Dehdashti; Barry A Siegel; Keith C Fischer; Jeff M Michalski; Adam S Kibel; Gerald L Andriole; Joel Picus; Michael J Welch Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Daniel T Schmid; Hubert John; Roland Zweifel; Tibor Cservenyak; Gerrit Westera; Gerhard W Goerres; Gustav K von Schulthess; Thomas F Hany Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Martin Heinisch; Albert Dirisamer; Wolfgang Loidl; Franz Stoiber; Bernhard Gruy; Silke Haim; Werner Langsteger Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2006 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Onisuru T Okotie; William J Aronson; Jeff A Wieder; Yen Liao; Fred Dorey; Jean B DeKERNION; Stephen J Freedland Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: A W Partin; J D Pearson; P K Landis; H B Carter; C R Pound; J Q Clemens; J I Epstein; P C Walsh Journal: Urology Date: 1994-05 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Jan D Soyka; Marco A Muster; Daniel T Schmid; Burkhardt Seifert; Ulrike Schick; Raymond Miralbell; Sandra Jorcano; Kathrin Zaugg; Hans-Helge Seifert; Patrick Veit-Haibach; Klaus Strobel; Niklaus G Schaefer; Daniela B Husarik; Thomas F Hany Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ludwig Rinnab; Joerg Simon; Richard E Hautmann; M V Cronauer; Kathrin Hohl; Andreas K Buck; Sven N Reske; Felix M Mottaghy Journal: World J Urol Date: 2009-02-21 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Michael Souvatzoglou; Matthias Eiber; Toshiki Takei; Sebastian Fürst; Tobias Maurer; Florian Gaertner; Hans Geinitz; Alexander Drzezga; Sibylle Ziegler; Stephan G Nekolla; Ernst J Rummeny; Markus Schwaiger; Ambros J Beer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-07-02 Impact factor: 9.236