PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to prospectively compare diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) and [(11)C]choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) with computed tomography (CT) for preoperative lymph node (LN) staging in prostate cancer (PCa) patients. METHODS: Between June 2010 and May 2012, CT, DWI and [(11)C]choline PET/CT were performed preoperatively in 33 intermediate- and high-risk PCa patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) and extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) including obturator fossa and internal, external and common iliac fields. Patient- and field-based performance characteristics for all three imaging techniques based on histopathological results are reported. Imaging techniques were compared by means of the area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: LN metastases were detected in 92 of 1,012 (9%) LNs from 14 of 33 (42%) patients. On patient-based analysis, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for CT were 57, 68 and 64%, respectively, for DWI were 57, 79 and 70%, respectively, and for [(11)C]choline PET/CT were 57, 90 and 76%, respectively. On field-based analysis, these numbers for CT were 47, 94 and 88%, respectively, for DWI were 56, 97 and 92%, respectively, and for [(11)C]choline PET/CT were 62, 96 and 92%, respectively. Neither DWI nor [(11)C]choline PET/CT performed significantly better than CT on pairwise comparison of patient- and field-based results. CONCLUSION: All three imaging techniques exhibit a rather low sensitivity with less than two thirds of LN metastases being detected on patient- and field-based analysis. Overall diagnostic efficacy did not differ significantly between imaging techniques, whereas distinct performance characteristics, esp. patient-based specificity, were best for [(11)C]choline PET/CT followed by DWI and CT.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to prospectively compare diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) and [(11)C]choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) with computed tomography (CT) for preoperative lymph node (LN) staging in prostate cancer (PCa) patients. METHODS: Between June 2010 and May 2012, CT, DWI and [(11)C]choline PET/CT were performed preoperatively in 33 intermediate- and high-risk PCa patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) and extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) including obturator fossa and internal, external and common iliac fields. Patient- and field-based performance characteristics for all three imaging techniques based on histopathological results are reported. Imaging techniques were compared by means of the area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: LN metastases were detected in 92 of 1,012 (9%) LNs from 14 of 33 (42%) patients. On patient-based analysis, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for CT were 57, 68 and 64%, respectively, for DWI were 57, 79 and 70%, respectively, and for [(11)C]choline PET/CT were 57, 90 and 76%, respectively. On field-based analysis, these numbers for CT were 47, 94 and 88%, respectively, for DWI were 56, 97 and 92%, respectively, and for [(11)C]choline PET/CT were 62, 96 and 92%, respectively. Neither DWI nor [(11)C]choline PET/CT performed significantly better than CT on pairwise comparison of patient- and field-based results. CONCLUSION: All three imaging techniques exhibit a rather low sensitivity with less than two thirds of LN metastases being detected on patient- and field-based analysis. Overall diagnostic efficacy did not differ significantly between imaging techniques, whereas distinct performance characteristics, esp. patient-based specificity, were best for [(11)C]choline PET/CT followed by DWI and CT.
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: Tobias Maurer; Michael Souvatzoglou; Hubert Kübler; Katharina Opercan; Stefan Schmidt; Ken Herrmann; Jens Stollfuss; Gregor Weirich; Bernhard Haller; Jürgen E Gschwend; Markus Schwaiger; Bernd J Krause; Uwe Treiber Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-12-14 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Tom Budiharto; Steven Joniau; Evelyne Lerut; Laura Van den Bergh; Felix Mottaghy; Christophe M Deroose; Raymond Oyen; Filip Ameye; Kris Bogaerts; Karin Haustermans; Hendrik Van Poppel Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-01-18 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Matthias M Heck; Margitta Retz; Miriam Bandur; Marc Souchay; Elisabeth Vitzthum; Gregor Weirich; Martin Mollenhauer; Tibor Schuster; Michael Autenrieth; Hubert Kübler; Tobias Maurer; Mark Thalgott; Kathleen Herkommer; Jürgen E Gschwend; Roman Nawroth Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-02-18 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Vincent Vandecaveye; Frederik De Keyzer; Vincent Vander Poorten; Piet Dirix; Eric Verbeken; Sandra Nuyts; Robert Hermans Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-02-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M Picchio; P Mapelli; V Panebianco; P Castellucci; E Incerti; A Briganti; G Gandaglia; M Kirienko; F Barchetti; C Nanni; F Montorsi; L Gianolli; S Fanti Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-01-17 Impact factor: 9.236