PURPOSE: We assessed the value of [11C]choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography in patients with prostate cancer in whom biochemical failure developed after radical prostatectomy but who showed no disease evidence on conventional imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Considered for this study were 2,124 patients treated with radical prostatectomy who underwent [11C]choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography to restage disease between December 2004 and January 2007. Study inclusion criteria were 1) previous radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection, 2) increasing prostate specific antigen beyond 0.2 ng/ml after radical prostatectomy, 3) no lymph node disease at radical prostatectomy, 4) no evidence of metastatic disease on conventional imaging, 5) no androgen deprivation therapy and 6) no adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy. These criteria were satisfied in 109 of the 2,124 patients (5%). RESULTS: Median prostate specific antigen at imaging was 0.81 ng/ml (range 0.22 to 16.76 ml). Imaging suggested local recurrence in 4 patients (4%) and pelvic lymph node disease in 8 (7%). Scans were positive in 5%, 15% and 28% of patients with prostate specific antigen less than 1, between 1 and 2, and greater than 2 ng/ml, respectively (p <0.05). Prostate specific antigen was the only significant predictor of tomography results (p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Positron emission tomography/computerized tomography detected increased [11C]choline uptake, suggesting recurrent disease in 11% of patients with prostate cancer, increasing prostate specific antigen after radical prostatectomy and no evidence of disease on conventional imaging. This modality may be useful to restage disease but it cannot be used to guide therapy. 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: We assessed the value of [11C]choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography in patients with prostate cancer in whom biochemical failure developed after radical prostatectomy but who showed no disease evidence on conventional imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Considered for this study were 2,124 patients treated with radical prostatectomy who underwent [11C]choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography to restage disease between December 2004 and January 2007. Study inclusion criteria were 1) previous radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection, 2) increasing prostate specific antigen beyond 0.2 ng/ml after radical prostatectomy, 3) no lymph node disease at radical prostatectomy, 4) no evidence of metastatic disease on conventional imaging, 5) no androgen deprivation therapy and 6) no adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy. These criteria were satisfied in 109 of the 2,124 patients (5%). RESULTS: Median prostate specific antigen at imaging was 0.81 ng/ml (range 0.22 to 16.76 ml). Imaging suggested local recurrence in 4 patients (4%) and pelvic lymph node disease in 8 (7%). Scans were positive in 5%, 15% and 28% of patients with prostate specific antigen less than 1, between 1 and 2, and greater than 2 ng/ml, respectively (p <0.05). Prostate specific antigen was the only significant predictor of tomography results (p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Positron emission tomography/computerized tomography detected increased [11C]choline uptake, suggesting recurrent disease in 11% of patients with prostate cancer, increasing prostate specific antigen after radical prostatectomy and no evidence of disease on conventional imaging. This modality may be useful to restage disease but it cannot be used to guide therapy. 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Giampiero Giovacchini; Priscilla Guglielmo; Paola Mapelli; Elena Incerti; Ana Maria Samanes Gajate; Elisabetta Giovannini; Mattia Riondato; Alberto Briganti; Luigi Gianolli; Andrea Ciarmiello; Maria Picchio Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-01-10 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Oladunni Akin-Akintayo; Funmilayo Tade; Pardeep Mittal; Courtney Moreno; Peter T Nieh; Peter Rossi; Dattatraya Patil; Raghuveer Halkar; Baowei Fei; Viraj Master; Ashesh B Jani; Hiroumi Kitajima; Adeboye O Osunkoya; Claudia Ormenisan-Gherasim; Mark M Goodman; David M Schuster Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2018-02-24 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Giampiero Giovacchini; Elena Incerti; Paola Mapelli; Margarita Kirienko; Alberto Briganti; Giorgio Gandaglia; Francesco Montorsi; Luigi Gianolli; Maria Picchio Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-02-20 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Lars J Petersen; Julie B Nielsen; Katja Dettmann; Rune V Fisker; Uwe Haberkorn; Louise Stenholt; Helle D Zacho Journal: Mol Clin Oncol Date: 2017-05-31