BACKGROUND: Conventional imaging (CI) techniques are inadequate for lymph node (LN) staging in prostate cancer (PCa). OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy of (11)C-Choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography (PET/CT) for LN staging in intermediate-risk and high-risk PCa and to compare it with two currently used nomograms. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From January 2007 to September 2007, 57 PCa patients at intermediate risk (n=27) or high risk (n=30) were enrolled at two academic centres. All patients underwent preoperative PET/CT and radical prostatectomy with extended pelvic LN dissection (PLND). Risk of LN metastasis (LNM) was assessed using available nomograms. MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and number of correctly recognized cases for LNM detection at PET/CT were assessed. The accuracy of PET/CT for LNM detection was compared with the accuracy of nomograms for LNM prediction by using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Fifteen patients (26%) had LNMs, and a total of 41 LNMs were identified. On a patient analysis, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and number of correctly recognized cases at PET/CT were 60.0%, 97.6%, 90.0%, 87.2%, and 87.7% while, on node analysis, these numbers were 41.4%, 99.8%, 94.4%, 97.2%, and 97.1%. The mean diameter (in mm) of the metastatic deposit of true-positive LNs was significantly higher than that of false-negative LNs (9.2 vs 4.2; p=0.001). PET/CT showed higher specificity and accuracy than the nomograms; however, in pairwise comparison, the areas under the curve (AUCs) were not statistically different (all p values >0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk PCa, (11)C-Choline PET/CT has quite a low sensitivity for LNM detection but performed better than clinical nomograms, with equal sensitivity and better specificity.
BACKGROUND: Conventional imaging (CI) techniques are inadequate for lymph node (LN) staging in prostate cancer (PCa). OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy of (11)C-Choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography (PET/CT) for LN staging in intermediate-risk and high-risk PCa and to compare it with two currently used nomograms. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From January 2007 to September 2007, 57 PCa patients at intermediate risk (n=27) or high risk (n=30) were enrolled at two academic centres. All patients underwent preoperative PET/CT and radical prostatectomy with extended pelvic LN dissection (PLND). Risk of LN metastasis (LNM) was assessed using available nomograms. MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and number of correctly recognized cases for LNM detection at PET/CT were assessed. The accuracy of PET/CT for LNM detection was compared with the accuracy of nomograms for LNM prediction by using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Fifteen patients (26%) had LNMs, and a total of 41 LNMs were identified. On a patient analysis, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and number of correctly recognized cases at PET/CT were 60.0%, 97.6%, 90.0%, 87.2%, and 87.7% while, on node analysis, these numbers were 41.4%, 99.8%, 94.4%, 97.2%, and 97.1%. The mean diameter (in mm) of the metastatic deposit of true-positive LNs was significantly higher than that of false-negative LNs (9.2 vs 4.2; p=0.001). PET/CT showed higher specificity and accuracy than the nomograms; however, in pairwise comparison, the areas under the curve (AUCs) were not statistically different (all p values >0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk PCa, (11)C-Choline PET/CT has quite a low sensitivity for LNM detection but performed better than clinical nomograms, with equal sensitivity and better specificity.
Authors: Alessandro Conti; Matteo Santoni; Luciano Burattini; Marina Scarpelli; Roberta Mazzucchelli; Andrea B Galosi; Liang Cheng; Antonio Lopez-Beltran; Alberto Briganti; Francesco Montorsi; Rodolfo Montironi Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-12-22 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
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