PURPOSE: PET has been proven to be helpful in the delineation of gross tumour volume (GTV) for external radiation therapy in several tumour entities. The aim of this study was to determine if [(11)C]choline PET could be used to localize the carcinomatous tissue within the prostate in order to specifically target this area for example with high-precision radiation therapy. METHODS: Included in this prospective study were 20 patients with histological proven prostate carcinoma who underwent [(11)C]choline PET/CT before radical prostatectomy. After surgical resection, specimens were fixed and cut into 5-mm step sections. In each section the area of the carcinoma was delineated manually by an experienced pathologist and digitalized, and the histopathological tumour volume was calculated. Shrinkage due to resection and fixation was corrected using in-vivo and ex-vivo CT data of the prostate. Histopathological tumour location and size were compared with the choline PET data. Different segmentation algorithms were applied to the PET data to segment the intraprostatic lesion volume. RESULTS: A total of 28 carcinomatous lesions were identified on histopathology. Only 13 (46 %) of these lesions had corresponding focal choline uptake. In the remaining lesions, no PET uptake (2 lesions) or diffuse uptake not corresponding to the area of the carcinoma (13 lesions) was found. In the patients with corresponding PET lesions, no suitable SUV threshold (neither absolute nor relative) was found for GTV segmentation to fit the volume to the histological tumour volume. CONCLUSION: The choline uptake pattern corresponded to the histological localization of prostate cancer in fewer than 50 % of lesions. Even when corresponding visual choline uptake was found, this uptake was highly variable between patients. Therefore SUV thresholding with standard algorithms did not lead to satisfying results with respect to defining tumour tissue in the prostate.
PURPOSE: PET has been proven to be helpful in the delineation of gross tumour volume (GTV) for external radiation therapy in several tumour entities. The aim of this study was to determine if [(11)C]choline PET could be used to localize the carcinomatous tissue within the prostate in order to specifically target this area for example with high-precision radiation therapy. METHODS: Included in this prospective study were 20 patients with histological proven prostate carcinoma who underwent [(11)C]choline PET/CT before radical prostatectomy. After surgical resection, specimens were fixed and cut into 5-mm step sections. In each section the area of the carcinoma was delineated manually by an experienced pathologist and digitalized, and the histopathological tumour volume was calculated. Shrinkage due to resection and fixation was corrected using in-vivo and ex-vivo CT data of the prostate. Histopathological tumour location and size were compared with the choline PET data. Different segmentation algorithms were applied to the PET data to segment the intraprostatic lesion volume. RESULTS: A total of 28 carcinomatous lesions were identified on histopathology. Only 13 (46 %) of these lesions had corresponding focal choline uptake. In the remaining lesions, no PET uptake (2 lesions) or diffuse uptake not corresponding to the area of the carcinoma (13 lesions) was found. In the patients with corresponding PET lesions, no suitable SUV threshold (neither absolute nor relative) was found for GTV segmentation to fit the volume to the histological tumour volume. CONCLUSION: The choline uptake pattern corresponded to the histological localization of prostate cancer in fewer than 50 % of lesions. Even when corresponding visual choline uptake was found, this uptake was highly variable between patients. Therefore SUV thresholding with standard algorithms did not lead to satisfying results with respect to defining tumour tissue in the prostate.
Authors: Michael Souvatzoglou; Gregor Weirich; Sarah Schwarzenboeck; Tobias Maurer; Tibor Schuster; Ralph Alexander Bundschuh; Matthias Eiber; Ken Herrmann; Hubert Kuebler; Hans Juergen Wester; Heinz Hoefler; Juergen Gschwend; Markus Schwaiger; Uwe Treiber; Bernd Joachim Krause Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-04-14 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Angela van Baardwijk; Brigitta G Baumert; Geert Bosmans; Marinus van Kroonenburgh; Sigrid Stroobants; Vincent Gregoire; Philippe Lambin; Dirk De Ruysscher Journal: Cancer Treat Rev Date: 2006-03-24 Impact factor: 12.111
Authors: Daniel T Schmid; Hubert John; Roland Zweifel; Tibor Cservenyak; Gerrit Westera; Gerhard W Goerres; Gustav K von Schulthess; Thomas F Hany Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sabrina T Astner; Mihaela Dobrei-Ciuchendea; Markus Essler; Ralf A Bundschuh; Heitetsu Sai; Markus Schwaiger; Michael Molls; Wolfgang A Weber; Anca-Ligia Grosu Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-04-25 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Thomas de Perrot; Olivier Rager; Max Scheffler; Martin Lord; Marc Pusztaszeri; Christophe Iselin; Osman Ratib; Jean-Paul Vallee Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-05-20 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Lena Thomas; Steffi Kantz; Arthur Hung; Debra Monaco; Florian C Gaertner; Markus Essler; Holger Strunk; Wolfram Laub; Ralph A Bundschuh Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-02-21 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Anca-Ligia Grosu; Gregor Weirich; Christina Wendl; Vesna Prokic; Simon Kirste; Hans Geinitz; Michael Souvatzoglou; Juergen E Gschwend; Markus Schwaiger; Michael Molls; Wolfgang A Weber; Uwe Treiber; Bernd Joachim Krause Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-09-04 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: L Van den Bergh; S Isebaert; M Koole; R Oyen; S Joniau; E Lerut; C M Deroose; F De Keyzer; H Van Poppel; K Haustermans Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: S M Schwarzenböck; J Kurth; Ch Gocke; T Kuhnt; G Hildebrandt; B J Krause Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-04-11 Impact factor: 9.236