PURPOSE: (18)F-Fluorocholine (FCH) and (11)C-acetate (ACE) PET are widely used for detection of recurrent prostate cancer (PC). We present the first results of a comparative, prospective PET/CT study of both tracers evaluated in the same patients presenting with recurrence and low PSA to compare the diagnostic information provided by the two tracers. METHODS: The study group comprised 23 patients studied for a rising PSA level after radical prostatectomy (RP, 7 patients, PSA ≤ 3 ng/ml), curative radiotherapy (RT, 7 patients, PSA ≤ 5 ng/ml) or RP and salvage RT (9 patients, PSA ≤ 5 ng/ml). Both FCH and ACE PET/CT scans were performed in a random sequence a median of 4 days (range 0 to 11 days) apart. FCH PET/CT was started at injection (307 ± 16 MBq) with a 10-min dynamic acquisition of the prostate bed, followed by a whole-body PET scan and late (45 min) imaging of the pelvis. ACE PET/CT was performed as a double whole-body PET scan starting 5 and 22 min after injection (994 ± 72 MBq), and a late view (45 min) of the prostate bed. PET/CT scans were blindly reviewed by two independent pairs of two experienced nuclear medicine physicians, discordant subgroup results being discussed to reach a consensus for positive, negative end equivocal results. RESULTS:PET results were concordant in 88 out of 92 local, regional and distant findings (Cohen's kappa 0.929). In particular, results were concordant in all patients concerning local status, bone metastases and distant findings. Lymph-node results were concordant in 19 patients and different in 4 patients. On a per-patient basis results were concordant in 22 of 23 patients (14 positive, 5 negative and 3 equivocal). In only one patient was ACE PET/CT positive for nodal metastases while FCH PET/CT was overall negative; interestingly, the ACE-positive and FCH-negative lymph nodes became positive in a second FCH PET/CT scan performed a few months later. CONCLUSION: Overall, ACE and FCH PET/CT showed excellent concordance, on both a per-lesion and a per-patient basis, suggesting that both tracers perform equally for recurrent prostate cancer staging.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: (18)F-Fluorocholine (FCH) and (11)C-acetate (ACE) PET are widely used for detection of recurrent prostate cancer (PC). We present the first results of a comparative, prospective PET/CT study of both tracers evaluated in the same patients presenting with recurrence and low PSA to compare the diagnostic information provided by the two tracers. METHODS: The study group comprised 23 patients studied for a rising PSA level after radical prostatectomy (RP, 7 patients, PSA ≤ 3 ng/ml), curative radiotherapy (RT, 7 patients, PSA ≤ 5 ng/ml) or RP and salvage RT (9 patients, PSA ≤ 5 ng/ml). Both FCH and ACE PET/CT scans were performed in a random sequence a median of 4 days (range 0 to 11 days) apart. FCH PET/CT was started at injection (307 ± 16 MBq) with a 10-min dynamic acquisition of the prostate bed, followed by a whole-body PET scan and late (45 min) imaging of the pelvis. ACE PET/CT was performed as a double whole-body PET scan starting 5 and 22 min after injection (994 ± 72 MBq), and a late view (45 min) of the prostate bed. PET/CT scans were blindly reviewed by two independent pairs of two experienced nuclear medicine physicians, discordant subgroup results being discussed to reach a consensus for positive, negative end equivocal results. RESULTS: PET results were concordant in 88 out of 92 local, regional and distant findings (Cohen's kappa 0.929). In particular, results were concordant in all patients concerning local status, bone metastases and distant findings. Lymph-node results were concordant in 19 patients and different in 4 patients. On a per-patient basis results were concordant in 22 of 23 patients (14 positive, 5 negative and 3 equivocal). In only one patient was ACE PET/CT positive for nodal metastases while FCH PET/CT was overall negative; interestingly, the ACE-positive and FCH-negative lymph nodes became positive in a second FCH PET/CT scan performed a few months later. CONCLUSION: Overall, ACE and FCH PET/CT showed excellent concordance, on both a per-lesion and a per-patient basis, suggesting that both tracers perform equally for recurrent prostate cancer staging.
Authors: B J Krause; M Souvatzoglou; M Tuncel; K Herrmann; A K Buck; C Praus; T Schuster; H Geinitz; U Treiber; M Schwaiger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-09-22 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ilaria Grassi; Cristina Nanni; Vincenzo Allegri; Joshua James Morigi; Gian Carlo Montini; Paolo Castellucci; Stefano Fanti Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-12-15
Authors: Daniela E Oprea-Lager; Andrew D Vincent; Reindert J A van Moorselaar; Winald R Gerritsen; Alfons J M van den Eertwegh; Jonas Eriksson; Ronald Boellaard; Otto S Hoekstra Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-10-31 Impact factor: 3.240
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
Authors: Christina Bluemel; Markus Krebs; Bülent Polat; Fränze Linke; Matthias Eiber; Samuel Samnick; Constantin Lapa; Michael Lassmann; Hubertus Riedmiller; Johannes Czernin; Domenico Rubello; Thorsten Bley; Saskia Kropf; Hans-Juergen Wester; Andreas K Buck; Ken Herrmann Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 7.794