INTRODUCTION: Conventional imaging (CI) is known to have limitations with respect to staging of patients with primary or relapsed prostate cancer. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) with (18)F-flurodeoxyglucose (FDG) is also often suboptimal because of low tracer avidity, but (18)F-fluorocholine (FCH) appears to be a promising alternative molecular imaging probe. We report a prospective pilot study of PET/CT comparing both tracers for staging and restaging of patients with prostate cancer. METHODS: Sixteen prostate cancer patients were evaluated (7 for staging and 9 for restaging). All patients also underwent CI, comprising at least an abdominopelvic CT and a bone scan. All imaging results and other relevant data were extracted from the imaging reports and medical charts. RESULTS: Based on all imaging-detected disease sites, both FCH-PET/CT and FDG-PET/CT (79%) were more sensitive than CI (14%), with the highest number of sites of nodal and distant disease on FCH PET/CT. FCH-PET/CT alone would have provided sufficient clinical information to form an appropriate management plan in 88% of cases, as compared with 56% for CI. CONCLUSION: FCH-PET/CT has the potential to impact on the management of patients with prostate cancer significantly more often than CI.
INTRODUCTION: Conventional imaging (CI) is known to have limitations with respect to staging of patients with primary or relapsed prostate cancer. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) with (18)F-flurodeoxyglucose (FDG) is also often suboptimal because of low tracer avidity, but (18)F-fluorocholine (FCH) appears to be a promising alternative molecular imaging probe. We report a prospective pilot study of PET/CT comparing both tracers for staging and restaging of patients with prostate cancer. METHODS: Sixteen prostate cancerpatients were evaluated (7 for staging and 9 for restaging). All patients also underwent CI, comprising at least an abdominopelvic CT and a bone scan. All imaging results and other relevant data were extracted from the imaging reports and medical charts. RESULTS: Based on all imaging-detected disease sites, both FCH-PET/CT and FDG-PET/CT (79%) were more sensitive than CI (14%), with the highest number of sites of nodal and distant disease on FCH PET/CT. FCH-PET/CT alone would have provided sufficient clinical information to form an appropriate management plan in 88% of cases, as compared with 56% for CI. CONCLUSION:FCH-PET/CT has the potential to impact on the management of patients with prostate cancer significantly more often than CI.
Authors: Nicola L Robertson; Evis Sala; Matthias Benz; Jonathan Landa; Peter Scardino; Howard I Scher; Hedvig Hricak; Hebert A Vargas Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-02-16 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Hsin-Yu Chen; Peder E Z Larson; Robert A Bok; Cornelius von Morze; Renuka Sriram; Romelyn Delos Santos; Justin Delos Santos; Jeremy W Gordon; Naeim Bahrami; Marcus Ferrone; John Kurhanewicz; Daniel B Vigneron Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Thomas Koesters; Anne-Kristin Vahle; Kent Friedman; Rachel M Bartlett; Samir S Taneja; Yu-Shin Ding; Jean Logan Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Sarah J Nelson; John Kurhanewicz; Daniel B Vigneron; Peder E Z Larson; Andrea L Harzstark; Marcus Ferrone; Mark van Criekinge; Jose W Chang; Robert Bok; Ilwoo Park; Galen Reed; Lucas Carvajal; Eric J Small; Pamela Munster; Vivian K Weinberg; Jan Henrik Ardenkjaer-Larsen; Albert P Chen; Ralph E Hurd; Liv-Ingrid Odegardstuen; Fraser J Robb; James Tropp; Jonathan A Murray Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2013-08-14 Impact factor: 17.956