PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical usefulness of [(11)C]choline positron emission tomography (PET)/CT in comparison with bone scintigraphy (BS) in detecting bone metastases (BM) of patients with biochemical progression after radical treatment for prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: Seventy-eight consecutive patients with biochemical progression of PCa (mean prostate-specific antigen 21.1 ng/ml, range 0.2-500.0 ng/ml) referred for both [(11)C]choline PET/CT and BS for restaging purposes were retrospectively analysed. The diagnostic accuracy of [(11)C]choline PET/CT and BS was assessed by using morphological imaging and/or follow-up as standards of reference. As equivocal findings were found, the accuracy analysis was performed twice, once including them as positive and once as negative. A separate analysis was also performed in hormone-resistant patients and data compared with those of patients who did not receive anti-androgenic treatment. RESULTS: Equivocal findings occurred in 1 of 78 (1%) cases in [(11)C]choline PET/CT and in 21 of 78 (27%) cases in BS. Depending on their attribution as either positive or negative, the ranges of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy for [(11)C]choline PET/CT were 89-89%, 98-100%, 96-100%, 94-96% and 95-96%, respectively. For BS they were 100-70%, 75-100%, 68--100%, 100-86% and 83-90%, respectively. Concordant findings between [(11)C]choline PET/CT and BS occurred in 55 of 78 (71%) cases. The accuracy of [(11)C]choline PET/CT did not significantly (p = 0.30) differ between hormone-resistant patients (97%) and those who did not receive anti-androgenic treatment (95%). CONCLUSION: In clinical practice, [(11)C]choline PET/CT may not replace BS because of its lower sensitivity. However, for its high specificity, [(11)C]choline PET/CT positive findings may accurately predict the presence of BM. Equivocal findings are more frequent in BS than [(11)C]choline PET/CT.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical usefulness of [(11)C]choline positron emission tomography (PET)/CT in comparison with bone scintigraphy (BS) in detecting bone metastases (BM) of patients with biochemical progression after radical treatment for prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: Seventy-eight consecutive patients with biochemical progression of PCa (mean prostate-specific antigen 21.1 ng/ml, range 0.2-500.0 ng/ml) referred for both [(11)C]choline PET/CT and BS for restaging purposes were retrospectively analysed. The diagnostic accuracy of [(11)C]choline PET/CT and BS was assessed by using morphological imaging and/or follow-up as standards of reference. As equivocal findings were found, the accuracy analysis was performed twice, once including them as positive and once as negative. A separate analysis was also performed in hormone-resistant patients and data compared with those of patients who did not receive anti-androgenic treatment. RESULTS: Equivocal findings occurred in 1 of 78 (1%) cases in [(11)C]choline PET/CT and in 21 of 78 (27%) cases in BS. Depending on their attribution as either positive or negative, the ranges of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy for [(11)C]choline PET/CT were 89-89%, 98-100%, 96-100%, 94-96% and 95-96%, respectively. For BS they were 100-70%, 75-100%, 68--100%, 100-86% and 83-90%, respectively. Concordant findings between [(11)C]choline PET/CT and BS occurred in 55 of 78 (71%) cases. The accuracy of [(11)C]choline PET/CT did not significantly (p = 0.30) differ between hormone-resistant patients (97%) and those who did not receive anti-androgenic treatment (95%). CONCLUSION: In clinical practice, [(11)C]choline PET/CT may not replace BS because of its lower sensitivity. However, for its high specificity, [(11)C]choline PET/CT positive findings may accurately predict the presence of BM. Equivocal findings are more frequent in BS than [(11)C]choline PET/CT.
Authors: M Picchio; C Landoni; C Messa; L Gianolli; M Matarrese; F De Cobelli; A Del Maschio; F Fazio Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Axel Heidenreich; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Steven Joniau; Malcolm Mason; Vsevolod Matveev; Nicolas Mottet; Hans-Peter Schmid; Theo van der Kwast; Thomas Wiegel; Filliberto Zattoni Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Mohsen Beheshti; Reza Vali; Peter Waldenberger; Friedrich Fitz; Michael Nader; Josef Hammer; Wolfgang Loidl; Christian Pirich; Ignac Fogelman; Werner Langsteger Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2009 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.488
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: 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: Simona Malaspina; Ugo De Giorgi; Jukka Kemppainen; Angelo Del Sole; Giovanni Paganelli Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2018-08-16 Impact factor: 3.469