PURPOSE OF THE REPORT: This study tested the feasibility of C11-acetate (acetate) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging to assess response to therapy in men with bone metastatic prostate cancer and compared results for disease detection and response evaluation with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men with ≥3 prostate cancer bone metastases identified by Tc-99m methylene diphosphonate (MDP) bone scintigraphy and/or computed tomography were enrolled in a prospective study of serial acetate and FDG PET imaging. Patients were imaged before and 6 to 12 weeks after initial androgen deprivation therapy for new metastatic prostate cancer or first-line chemotherapy with docetaxel for castration-resistant prostate cancer. Qualitative assessment and changes in the tumor:normal uptake ratio were used to assess response by both acetate and FDG PET. In addition, the detection of bone metastases pretherapy was compared for acetate and FDG PET. RESULTS: A total of 8 patients with documented bone metastases were imaged, of which 6 were imaged both pre- and post-therapy. Acetate PET detected bone metastases in all 8 patients, whereas FDG PET detected lesions in 6 of the 7 imaged patients. Acetate PET generally detected more metastases with a higher tumor:normal uptake ratio. Qualitative and quantitative assessments of post-treatment response correlated with composite clinical designations of response, stable disease, or progression in 6 of 6 and 5 of 6 by acetate and 4 of 5 and 3 of 5 by FDG PET, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, results indicate that acetate PET holds promise for response assessment of prostate cancer bone metastases and is complementary to FDG PET in bone metastasis detection.
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT: This study tested the feasibility of C11-acetate (acetate) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging to assess response to therapy in men with bone metastatic prostate cancer and compared results for disease detection and response evaluation with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Men with ≥3 prostate cancer bone metastases identified by Tc-99m methylene diphosphonate (MDP) bone scintigraphy and/or computed tomography were enrolled in a prospective study of serial acetate and FDG PET imaging. Patients were imaged before and 6 to 12 weeks after initial androgen deprivation therapy for new metastatic prostate cancer or first-line chemotherapy with docetaxel for castration-resistant prostate cancer. Qualitative assessment and changes in the tumor:normal uptake ratio were used to assess response by both acetate and FDG PET. In addition, the detection of bone metastases pretherapy was compared for acetate and FDG PET. RESULTS: A total of 8 patients with documented bone metastases were imaged, of which 6 were imaged both pre- and post-therapy. Acetate PET detected bone metastases in all 8 patients, whereas FDG PET detected lesions in 6 of the 7 imaged patients. Acetate PET generally detected more metastases with a higher tumor:normal uptake ratio. Qualitative and quantitative assessments of post-treatment response correlated with composite clinical designations of response, stable disease, or progression in 6 of 6 and 5 of 6 by acetate and 4 of 5 and 3 of 5 by FDG PET, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, results indicate that acetate PET holds promise for response assessment of prostate cancer bone metastases and is complementary to FDG PET in bone metastasis detection.
Authors: Murat Tuncel; Michael Souvatzoglou; Ken Herrmann; Jens Stollfuss; Tibor Schuster; Gregor Weirich; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Markus Schwaiger; Bernd J Krause Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: M Yoshimoto; A Waki; Y Yonekura; N Sadato; T Murata; N Omata; N Takahashi; M J Welch; Y Fujibayashi Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Maha Hussain; Catherine M Tangen; Celestia Higano; Paul F Schelhammer; James Faulkner; E David Crawford; George Wilding; Atif Akdas; Eric J Small; Bryan Donnelly; Gary MacVicar; Derek Raghavan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-08-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J V Swinnen; F Vanderhoydonc; A A Elgamal; M Eelen; I Vercaeren; S Joniau; H Van Poppel; L Baert; K Goossens; W Heyns; G Verhoeven Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2000-10-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Jennifer M Specht; Stephen L Tam; Brenda F Kurland; Julie R Gralow; Robert B Livingston; Hannah M Linden; Georgiana K Ellis; Erin K Schubert; Lisa K Dunnwald; David A Mankoff Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Heather A Jacene; Takayoshi Ishimori; James M Engles; Sophie Leboulleux; Vered Stearns; Richard L Wahl Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Wolfgang Luboldt; Rainer Küfer; Norbert Blumstein; Todd L Toussaint; Alexander Kluge; Marcus D Seemann; Hans-Joachim Luboldt Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-10-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mohsen Beheshti; Reza Vali; Peter Waldenberger; Friedrich Fitz; Michael Nader; Wolfgang Loidl; Gabriele Broinger; Franz Stoiber; Ignac Foglman; Werner Langsteger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-05-09 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Howard I Scher; Susan Halabi; Ian Tannock; Michael Morris; Cora N Sternberg; Michael A Carducci; Mario A Eisenberger; Celestia Higano; Glenn J Bubley; Robert Dreicer; Daniel Petrylak; Philip Kantoff; Ethan Basch; William Kevin Kelly; William D Figg; Eric J Small; Tomasz M Beer; George Wilding; Alison Martin; Maha Hussain Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Finbarr O'Sullivan; Mark Muzi; David A Mankoff; Janet F Eary; Alexander M Spence; Kenneth A Krohn Journal: Ann Appl Stat Date: 2014-06-01 Impact factor: 2.083
Authors: Neeta Pandit-Taskar; Joseph A O'Donoghue; Jeremy C Durack; Serge K Lyashchenko; Sarah M Cheal; Volkan Beylergil; Robert A Lefkowitz; Jorge A Carrasquillo; Danny F Martinez; Alex Mak Fung; Stephen B Solomon; Mithat Gönen; Glenn Heller; Massimo Loda; David M Nanus; Scott T Tagawa; Jarett L Feldman; Joseph R Osborne; Jason S Lewis; Victor E Reuter; Wolfgang A Weber; Neil H Bander; Howard I Scher; Steven M Larson; Michael J Morris Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-07-14 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Kimy M Emonds; Johannes V Swinnen; Wytske M van Weerden; Frank Vanderhoydonc; Johan Nuyts; Luc Mortelmans; Felix M Mottaghy Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-07-06 Impact factor: 9.236