PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of [(18)F]-choline (FCH) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for staging and restaging of prostate cancer. METHODS: FCH PET/CT was performed in 111 patients with prostate cancer using 200 MBq FCH: 43 patients [mean age 63 years; mean prostrate specific antigen (PSA) 11.58 microg/l] were examined for initial staging, and 68 patients (mean age 66.4 years) were examined for restaging (mean PSA 10.81 microg/l). FCH PET/CT results were correlated to histopathology, bone scan, morphology as revealed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and CT, PET/CT follow-up and PSA follow-up after therapy. RESULTS: FCH PET/CT scans at initial staging correctly showed no metastases in 36/38 patients undergoing radical surgery, as confirmed by PSA levels <0.1 microg/l 6 months postoperatively. Lymphadenectomy was performed in 24 of these patients, revealing four false FCH-negative lymph nodes (LN). In one patient, only lymphadenectomy was performed since a FCH-positive LN was confirmed by histology. Four patients showed FCH-positive bone metastases, as proven by bone scan. FCH PET/CT scans at restaging correctly revealed local recurrence in 36 patients. No pathological FCH uptake was observed in 11 patients with biochemical recurrence. Twenty-three patients showed FCH-positive LN. Twenty LN were surgically removed in seven patients. Histopathology verified metastases in all LN, but revealed two additional metastastic, FCH-negative LN. Seventeen patients showed FCH-positive bone metastases, as proven by bone scan or MRI. Sensitivity to detect recurrent disease was 86%. CONCLUSION: The results obtained using FCH PET/CT scans for initial N-staging were discouraging, especially in terms of its inability to detect small metastases. Recurrent disease can be localized reliably in patients with PSA levels of >2 microg/l.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of [(18)F]-choline (FCH) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for staging and restaging of prostate cancer. METHODS:FCH PET/CT was performed in 111 patients with prostate cancer using 200 MBq FCH: 43 patients [mean age 63 years; mean prostrate specific antigen (PSA) 11.58 microg/l] were examined for initial staging, and 68 patients (mean age 66.4 years) were examined for restaging (mean PSA 10.81 microg/l). FCH PET/CT results were correlated to histopathology, bone scan, morphology as revealed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and CT, PET/CT follow-up and PSA follow-up after therapy. RESULTS:FCH PET/CT scans at initial staging correctly showed no metastases in 36/38 patients undergoing radical surgery, as confirmed by PSA levels <0.1 microg/l 6 months postoperatively. Lymphadenectomy was performed in 24 of these patients, revealing four false FCH-negative lymph nodes (LN). In one patient, only lymphadenectomy was performed since a FCH-positive LN was confirmed by histology. Four patients showed FCH-positive bone metastases, as proven by bone scan. FCH PET/CT scans at restaging correctly revealed local recurrence in 36 patients. No pathological FCH uptake was observed in 11 patients with biochemical recurrence. Twenty-three patients showed FCH-positive LN. Twenty LN were surgically removed in seven patients. Histopathology verified metastases in all LN, but revealed two additional metastastic, FCH-negative LN. Seventeen patients showed FCH-positive bone metastases, as proven by bone scan or MRI. Sensitivity to detect recurrent disease was 86%. CONCLUSION: The results obtained using FCH PET/CT scans for initial N-staging were discouraging, especially in terms of its inability to detect small metastases. Recurrent disease can be localized reliably in patients with PSA levels of >2 microg/l.
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Taylor Murray; Elizabeth Ward; Alicia Samuels; Ram C Tiwari; Asma Ghafoor; Eric J Feuer; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2005 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: T R DeGrado; R E Coleman; S Wang; S W Baldwin; M D Orr; C N Robertson; T J Polascik; D T Price Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2001-01-01 Impact factor: 12.701
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: Axel Häcker; Stefan Jeschke; Karl Leeb; Kurt Prammer; Josef Ziegerhofer; Wolfgang Sega; Werner Langsteger; Guenter Janetschek Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Igle J de Jong; Jan Pruim; Philip H Elsinga; Maud M G J Jongen; Han J A Mensink; Willem Vaalburg Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2002-07-27 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: H Hautzel; V Müller-Mattheis; H Herzog; W Roden; H H Coenen; R Ackermann; H W Müller-Gärtner; B J Krause Journal: Urologe A Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Francisco Osvaldo García-Pérez; Jenny Davanzo; Sergio López-Buenrostro; Clara Santos-Cuevas; Guillermina Ferro-Flores; Miguel A Jímenez-Ríos; Anna Scavuzzo; Zael Santana-Ríos; Sevastián Medina-Ornelas Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-10-20
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: 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
Authors: Hanneke J M Meijer; Oscar A Debats; Emile N J Th van Lin; Marco van Vulpen; J Alfred Witjes; Wim J G Oyen; Jelle O Barentsz; Johannes H A M Kaanders Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2013-05-28 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Ralph A Bundschuh; Christina M Wendl; Gregor Weirich; Mathias Eiber; Michael Souvatzoglou; Uwe Treiber; Hubert Kübler; Tobias Maurer; Jürgen E Gschwend; Hans Geinitz; Anca L Grosu; Sibylle I Ziegler; Bernd Joachim Krause Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 9.236