Literature DB >> 23123372

Operational characteristics of (11)c-choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for prostate cancer with biochemical recurrence after initial treatment.

Christopher R Mitchell1, Val J Lowe, Laureano J Rangel, Joseph C Hung, Eugene D Kwon, R Jeffrey Karnes.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We examined the performance of (11)C-choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for its ability to delineate prostate cancer distribution and extent after initial therapy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A consecutive series retrospective review was performed of all patients with prostate cancer who were evaluated using (11)C-choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography from September 2007 to November 2010 at the Mayo Clinic. Statistical analysis was performed to determine the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and prostate specific antigen threshold for the detection of recurrent lesions.
RESULTS: In the study period 176 patients with biochemical recurrence after primary treatment failure underwent (11)C-choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography. Using patient based analysis (11)C-choline positron emission tomography yielded a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of 93%, 76%, 91% and 81%, respectively. Of the 176 positron emission tomography/computerized tomography scans performed 56 (32%) were deemed clinically useful as defined by the ability to identify lesions not delineated using conventional imaging, thereby prompting changes in clinical management. The optimal prostate specific antigen for lesion detection was 2.0 ng/ml. On multivariate analysis prostate specific antigen at positron emission tomography (HR 1.37, p = 0.04) and clinical stage at initial diagnosis of prostate cancer (HR 5.19, p = 0.0035) were significant predictors of positive (11)C-choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography.
CONCLUSIONS: (11)C-choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography performs well in men with biochemical recurrence after primary treatment failure. The optimal prostate specific antigen value for lesion detection is approximately 2.0 ng/ml. We found that (11)C-choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography substantially enhances the rate of prostate cancer lesion detection by approximately 32% beyond what can be garnered using conventional imaging techniques and at a lower prostate specific antigen value.
Copyright © 2013 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23123372     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.10.069

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  30 in total

Review 1.  Radiopharmaceuticals as probes to characterize tumour tissue.

Authors:  Israt S Alam; Mubarik A Arshad; Quang-Dé Nguyen; Eric O Aboagye
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 2.  PET Tracers Beyond FDG in Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  David M Schuster; Cristina Nanni; Stefano Fanti
Journal:  Semin Nucl Med       Date:  2016-09-07       Impact factor: 4.446

Review 3.  PET imaging of recurrent and metastatic prostate cancer with novel tracers.

Authors:  Francesca V Mertan; Liza Lindenberg; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  Future Oncol       Date:  2016-08-16       Impact factor: 3.404

4.  Recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: restaging performance of 18F-choline hybrid PET/MRI.

Authors:  Verane Achard; Giorgio Lamanna; Antoine Denis; Thomas De Perrot; Ismini Charis Mainta; Osman Ratib; Christophe Iselin; Raymond Miralbell; Valentina Garibotto; Thomas Zilli
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2019-06-12       Impact factor: 3.064

5.  Identification of Site-specific Recurrence Following Primary Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer Using C-11 Choline Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography: A Nomogram for Predicting Extrapelvic Disease.

Authors:  William P Parker; Brian J Davis; Sean S Park; Kenneth R Olivier; Richard Choo; Mark A Nathan; Val J Lowe; Timothy J Welch; Jaden D Evans; William S Harmsen; Harras B Zaid; Ilya Sobol; Daniel M Moreira; Rimki Haloi; Matthew K Tollefson; Matthew T Gettman; Stephen A Boorjian; Lance A Mynderse; R Jeffrey Karnes; Eugene D Kwon
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2016-09-03       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 6.  Imaging assessment of local recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Michael J Magnetta; David Casalino; Matthew T Heller
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-12

Review 7.  Diagnostic imaging to detect and evaluate response to therapy in bone metastases from prostate cancer: current modalities and new horizons.

Authors:  Laura Evangelista; Francesco Bertoldo; Francesco Boccardo; Giario Conti; Ilario Menchi; Francesco Mungai; Umberto Ricardi; Emilio Bombardieri
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 9.236

8.  Evaluation of Posttreatment Follow-Up of Patients With Prostate Cancer Relative to the American College of Radiology's Appropriateness Criteria.

Authors:  Jennifer S McDonald; Rickey E Carter; R Jeffrey Karnes; John D Port; Akira Kawashima; Stephanie K Carlson; Claire E Bender
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  A urologist's perspective on prostate cancer imaging: past, present, and future.

Authors:  Arvin K George; Baris Turkbey; Subin G Valayil; Akhil Muthigi; Francesca Mertan; Michael Kongnyuy; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2016-05

10.  Comparison of meta-analyses among elastosonography (ES) and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) imaging techniques in the application of prostate cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Qiaohong Ouyang; Zhongxiang Duan; Jixiao Lei; Guangli Jiao
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2015-09-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.