David M Schuster1, Peter T Nieh2, Ashesh B Jani3, Rianot Amzat4, F Dubois Bowman5, Raghuveer K Halkar4, Viraj A Master2, Jonathon A Nye4, Oluwaseun A Odewole4, Adeboye O Osunkoya6, Bital Savir-Baruch4, Pooneh Alaei-Taleghani4, Mark M Goodman4. 1. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: dschust@emory.edu. 2. Department of Urology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 4. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 5. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 6. Department of Urology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia; Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We prospectively evaluated the amino acid analogue positron emission tomography radiotracer anti-3-[(18)F]FACBC compared to ProstaScint® ((111)In-capromab pendetide) single photon emission computerized tomography-computerized tomography to detect recurrent prostate carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 93 patients met study inclusion criteria who underwent anti-3-[(18)F]FACBC positron emission tomography-computerized tomography plus (111)In-capromab pendetide single photon emission computerized tomography-computerized tomography for suspected recurrent prostate carcinoma within 90 days. Reference standards were applied by a multidisciplinary board. We calculated diagnostic performance for detecting disease. RESULTS: In the 91 of 93 patients with sufficient data for a consensus on the presence or absence of prostate/bed disease anti-3-[(18)F]FACBC had 90.2% sensitivity, 40.0% specificity, 73.6% accuracy, 75.3% positive predictive value and 66.7% negative predictive value compared to (111)In-capromab pendetide with 67.2%, 56.7%, 63.7%, 75.9% and 45.9%, respectively. In the 70 of 93 patients with a consensus on the presence or absence of extraprostatic disease anti-3-[(18)F]FACBC had 55.0% sensitivity, 96.7% specificity, 72.9% accuracy, 95.7% positive predictive value and 61.7% negative predictive value compared to (111)In-capromab pendetide with 10.0%, 86.7%, 42.9%, 50.0% and 41.9%, respectively. Of 77 index lesions used to prove positivity histological proof was obtained in 74 (96.1%). Anti-3-[(18)F]FACBC identified 14 more positive prostate bed recurrences (55 vs 41) and 18 more patients with extraprostatic involvement (22 vs 4). Anti-3-[(18)F]FACBC positron emission tomography-computerized tomography correctly up-staged 18 of 70 cases (25.7%) in which there was a consensus on the presence or absence of extraprostatic involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Better diagnostic performance was noted for anti-3-[(18)F]FACBC positron emission tomography-computerized tomography than for (111)In-capromab pendetide single photon emission computerized tomography-computerized tomography for prostate carcinoma recurrence. The former method detected significantly more prostatic and extraprostatic disease.
PURPOSE: We prospectively evaluated the amino acid analogue positron emission tomography radiotracer anti-3-[(18)F]FACBC compared to ProstaScint® ((111)In-capromab pendetide) single photon emission computerized tomography-computerized tomography to detect recurrent prostate carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 93 patients met study inclusion criteria who underwent anti-3-[(18)F]FACBC positron emission tomography-computerized tomography plus (111)In-capromab pendetide single photon emission computerized tomography-computerized tomography for suspected recurrent prostate carcinoma within 90 days. Reference standards were applied by a multidisciplinary board. We calculated diagnostic performance for detecting disease. RESULTS: In the 91 of 93 patients with sufficient data for a consensus on the presence or absence of prostate/bed disease anti-3-[(18)F]FACBC had 90.2% sensitivity, 40.0% specificity, 73.6% accuracy, 75.3% positive predictive value and 66.7% negative predictive value compared to (111)In-capromab pendetide with 67.2%, 56.7%, 63.7%, 75.9% and 45.9%, respectively. In the 70 of 93 patients with a consensus on the presence or absence of extraprostatic disease anti-3-[(18)F]FACBC had 55.0% sensitivity, 96.7% specificity, 72.9% accuracy, 95.7% positive predictive value and 61.7% negative predictive value compared to (111)In-capromab pendetide with 10.0%, 86.7%, 42.9%, 50.0% and 41.9%, respectively. Of 77 index lesions used to prove positivity histological proof was obtained in 74 (96.1%). Anti-3-[(18)F]FACBC identified 14 more positive prostate bed recurrences (55 vs 41) and 18 more patients with extraprostatic involvement (22 vs 4). Anti-3-[(18)F]FACBC positron emission tomography-computerized tomography correctly up-staged 18 of 70 cases (25.7%) in which there was a consensus on the presence or absence of extraprostatic involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Better diagnostic performance was noted for anti-3-[(18)F]FACBC positron emission tomography-computerized tomography than for (111)In-capromab pendetide single photon emission computerized tomography-computerized tomography for prostate carcinoma recurrence. The former method detected significantly more prostatic and extraprostatic disease.
Authors: David M Schuster; Bital Savir-Baruch; Peter T Nieh; Viraj A Master; Raghuveer K Halkar; Peter J Rossi; Melinda M Lewis; Jonathon A Nye; Weiping Yu; F DuBois Bowman; Mark M Goodman Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-04-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: David M Schuster; John R Votaw; Peter T Nieh; Weiping Yu; Jonathon A Nye; Viraj Master; F DuBois Bowman; Muta M Issa; Mark M Goodman Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jonathan McConathy; Weiping Yu; Nachwa Jarkas; Wonewoo Seo; David M Schuster; Mark M Goodman Journal: Med Res Rev Date: 2011-07-26 Impact factor: 12.944
Authors: Cherry T Thomas; Patrick T Bradshaw; Brad H Pollock; James E Montie; Jeremy M G Taylor; Howard D Thames; Patrick W McLaughlin; David A DeBiose; David H Hussey; Richard L Wahl Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Steve Y Cho; Kenneth L Gage; Ronnie C Mease; Srinivasan Senthamizhchelvan; Daniel P Holt; Akimosa Jeffrey-Kwanisai; Christopher J Endres; Robert F Dannals; George Sgouros; Martin Lodge; Mario A Eisenberger; Ronald Rodriguez; Michael A Carducci; Camilo Rojas; Barbara S Slusher; Alan P Kozikowski; Martin G Pomper Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Christopher R Mitchell; Val J Lowe; Laureano J Rangel; Joseph C Hung; Eugene D Kwon; R Jeffrey Karnes Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-10-30 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Neeta Pandit-Taskar; Joseph A O'Donoghue; Volkan Beylergil; Serge Lyashchenko; Shutian Ruan; Stephen B Solomon; Jeremy C Durack; Jorge A Carrasquillo; Robert A Lefkowitz; Mithat Gonen; Jason S Lewis; Jason P Holland; Sarah M Cheal; Victor E Reuter; Joseph R Osborne; Massimo F Loda; Peter M Smith-Jones; Wolfgang A Weber; Neil H Bander; Howard I Scher; Michael J Morris; Steven M Larson Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-08-21 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ashesh B Jani; Eduard Schreibmann; Peter J Rossi; Joseph Shelton; Karen Godette; Peter Nieh; Viraj A Master; Omer Kucuk; Mark Goodman; Raghuveer Halkar; Sherrie Cooper; Zhengjia Chen; David M Schuster Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-09-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Oladunni O Akin-Akintayo; Ashesh B Jani; Oluwaseun Odewole; Funmilayo I Tade; Peter T Nieh; Viraj A Master; Leah M Bellamy; Raghuveer K Halkar; Chao Zhang; Zhengjia Chen; Mark M Goodman; David M Schuster Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: F I Tade; W G Wiles; G Lu; B Bilir; O Akin-Akintayo; J S Lee; D Patil; W Yu; C Ormenisan Gherasim; B Fei; C S Moreno; A O Osunkoya; E J Teoh; S Oka; H Okudaira; M M Goodman; D M Schuster Journal: Amino Acids Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 3.520
Authors: Hebert Alberto Vargas; Alexandre G Martin-Malburet; Toshikazu Takeda; Renato B Corradi; James Eastham; Andreas Wibmer; Evis Sala; Michael J Zelefsky; Wolfgang A Weber; Hedvig Hricak Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 3.498