PURPOSE: To report the own experience with 66 patients who received 18F-choline PET-CT (positron emission tomography-computed tomography) for treatment planning. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Image acquisition followed 1 h after injection of 178-355 MBq (18)F-choline. An intraprostatic lesion (GTV(PET) [gross tumor volume]) was defined by a tumor-to-background SUV (standard uptake value) ratio > 2. A dose of 76 Gy was prescribed to the prostate in 2-Gy fractions, with a simultaneous integrated boost up to 80 Gy. RESULTS: A boost volume could not be defined for a single patient. One, two and three or more lesions were found for 36 (55%), 22 (33%) and seven patients (11%). The lobe(s) with a positive biopsy correlated with a GTV(PET) in the same lobe in 63 cases (97%). GTV(PET) was additionally defined in 33 of 41 prostate lobes (80%) with only negative biopsies. GTV(PET), SUV(mean) and SUV(max) were found to be dependent on well-known prognostic risk factors, particularly T-stage and Gleason Score. In multivariate analysis, Gleason Score > 7 resulted as an independent factor for GTV(PET) > 8 cm(3) (hazard ratio 5.5; p = 0.02) and SUV(max) > 5 (hazard ratio 4.4; p = 0.04). Neoadjuvant hormonal treatment (NHT) did not affect SUV levels. The mean EUDs (equivalent uniform doses) to the rectum and bladder (55.9 Gy and 54.8 Gy) were comparable to patients (n = 18) who were treated in the same period without a boost (54.3 Gy and 55.6 Gy). CONCLUSION: Treatment planning with (18)F-choline PET-CT allows the definition of an integrated boost in nearly all prostate cancer patients - including patients after NHT - without considerably affecting EUDs for the organs at risk. GTV(PET) and SUV levels were found to be dependent on prognostic risk factors, particularly Gleason Score.
PURPOSE: To report the own experience with 66 patients who received 18F-choline PET-CT (positron emission tomography-computed tomography) for treatment planning. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Image acquisition followed 1 h after injection of 178-355 MBq (18)F-choline. An intraprostatic lesion (GTV(PET) [gross tumor volume]) was defined by a tumor-to-background SUV (standard uptake value) ratio > 2. A dose of 76 Gy was prescribed to the prostate in 2-Gy fractions, with a simultaneous integrated boost up to 80 Gy. RESULTS: A boost volume could not be defined for a single patient. One, two and three or more lesions were found for 36 (55%), 22 (33%) and seven patients (11%). The lobe(s) with a positive biopsy correlated with a GTV(PET) in the same lobe in 63 cases (97%). GTV(PET) was additionally defined in 33 of 41 prostate lobes (80%) with only negative biopsies. GTV(PET), SUV(mean) and SUV(max) were found to be dependent on well-known prognostic risk factors, particularly T-stage and Gleason Score. In multivariate analysis, Gleason Score > 7 resulted as an independent factor for GTV(PET) > 8 cm(3) (hazard ratio 5.5; p = 0.02) and SUV(max) > 5 (hazard ratio 4.4; p = 0.04). Neoadjuvant hormonal treatment (NHT) did not affect SUV levels. The mean EUDs (equivalent uniform doses) to the rectum and bladder (55.9 Gy and 54.8 Gy) were comparable to patients (n = 18) who were treated in the same period without a boost (54.3 Gy and 55.6 Gy). CONCLUSION: Treatment planning with (18)F-choline PET-CT allows the definition of an integrated boost in nearly all prostate cancerpatients - including patients after NHT - without considerably affecting EUDs for the organs at risk. GTV(PET) and SUV levels were found to be dependent on prognostic risk factors, particularly Gleason Score.
Authors: G O De Meerleer; L A Vakaet; W R De Gersem; C De Wagter; B De Naeyer; W De Neve Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Helen A McNair; Vibeke N Hansen; Christopher C Parker; Phil M Evans; Andrew Norman; Elizabeth Miles; Emma J Harris; Louise Del-Acroix; Elizabeth Smith; Richard Keane; Vincent S Khoo; Alan C Thompson; David P Dearnaley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-11-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Sandi A Kwee; Gregory P Thibault; Richard S Stack; Marc N Coel; Bungo Furusato; Isabell A Sesterhenn Journal: Mol Imaging Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 4.488
Authors: Michael Pinkawa; Martin Pursch-Lee; Branka Asadpour; Bernd Gagel; Marc D Piroth; Jens Klotz; Sandra Nussen; Michael J Eble Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2008-12-24 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Abrahim Al-Mamgani; Wim L J van Putten; Wilma D Heemsbergen; Geert J L H van Leenders; Annerie Slot; Michel F H Dielwart; Luca Incrocci; Joos V Lebesque Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-05-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Eija Sutinen; Martti Nurmi; Anne Roivainen; Matti Varpula; Tuula Tolvanen; Pertti Lehikoinen; Heikki Minn Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2003-11-20 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: A Zabel-du Bois; S Nill; S Ulrich; U Oelfke; B Rhein; P Haering; S Milker-Zabel; A Schwahofer Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-01-05 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: B Henriques de Figueiredo; T Merlin; H de Clermont-Gallerande; M Hatt; D Vimont; P Fernandez; F Lamare Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2013-11-01 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Michael Pinkawa; Carolina Ribbing; Victoria Djukic; Jens Klotz; Richard Holy; Michael J Eble Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2015-05-26 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Martin Dolezel; Karel Odrazka; Milan Zouhar; Miloslava Vaculikova; Jana Sefrova; Jan Jansa; Petr Paluska; Tereza Kohlova; Jaroslav Vanasek; Josef Kovarik Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2015-01-15 Impact factor: 3.621