PURPOSE: To characterize uptake of 1-amino-3-fluorine 18-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid ((18)F FACBC) in patients with localized prostate cancer, benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), and normal prostate tissue and to evaluate its potential utility in delineation of intraprostatic cancers in histopathologically confirmed localized prostate cancer in comparison with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and written informed consent were obtained for this HIPAA-compliant prospective study. Twenty-one men underwent dynamic and static abdominopelvic (18)F FACBC combined positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT) and multiparametric (MP) 3-T endorectal MR imaging before robotic-assisted prostatectomy. PET/CT and MR images were coregistered by using pelvic bones as fiducial markers; this was followed by manual adjustments. Whole-mount histopathologic specimens were sliced with an MR-based patient-specific mold. (18)F FACBC PET standardized uptake values (SUVs) were compared with those at MR imaging and histopathologic analysis for lesion- and sector-based (20 sectors per patient) analysis. Positive and negative predictive values for each modality were estimated by using generalized estimating equations with logit link function and working independence correlation structure. RESULTS: (18)F FACBC tumor uptake was rapid but reversible. It peaked 3.6 minutes after injection and reached a relative plateau at 15-20 minutes (SUVmax[15-20min]). Mean prostate tumor SUVmax(15-20min) was significantly higher than that of the normal prostate (4.5 ± 0.5 vs 2.7 ± 0.5) (P < .001); however, it was not significantly different from that of BPH (4.3 ± 0.6) (P = .27). Sector-based comparison with histopathologic analysis, including all tumors, revealed sensitivity and specificity of 67% and 66%, respectively, for (18)F FACBC PET/CT and 73% and 79%, respectively, for T2-weighted MR imaging. (18)F FACBC PET/CT and MP MR imaging were used to localize dominant tumors (sensitivity of 90% for both). Combined (18)F FACBC and MR imaging yielded positive predictive value of 82% for tumor localization, which was higher than that with either modality alone (P < .001). CONCLUSION: (18)F FACBC PET/CT shows higher uptake in intraprostatic tumor foci than in normal prostate tissue; however, (18)F FACBC uptake in tumors is similar to that in BPH nodules. Thus, it is not specific for prostate cancer. Nevertheless, combined (18)F FACBC PET/CT and T2-weighted MR imaging enable more accurate localization of prostate cancer lesions than either modality alone. RSNA, 2013
PURPOSE: To characterize uptake of 1-amino-3-fluorine 18-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid ((18)F FACBC) in patients with localized prostate cancer, benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), and normal prostate tissue and to evaluate its potential utility in delineation of intraprostatic cancers in histopathologically confirmed localized prostate cancer in comparison with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and written informed consent were obtained for this HIPAA-compliant prospective study. Twenty-one men underwent dynamic and static abdominopelvic (18)F FACBC combined positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT) and multiparametric (MP) 3-T endorectal MR imaging before robotic-assisted prostatectomy. PET/CT and MR images were coregistered by using pelvic bones as fiducial markers; this was followed by manual adjustments. Whole-mount histopathologic specimens were sliced with an MR-based patient-specific mold. (18)F FACBC PET standardized uptake values (SUVs) were compared with those at MR imaging and histopathologic analysis for lesion- and sector-based (20 sectors per patient) analysis. Positive and negative predictive values for each modality were estimated by using generalized estimating equations with logit link function and working independence correlation structure. RESULTS: (18)F FACBC tumor uptake was rapid but reversible. It peaked 3.6 minutes after injection and reached a relative plateau at 15-20 minutes (SUVmax[15-20min]). Mean prostate tumor SUVmax(15-20min) was significantly higher than that of the normal prostate (4.5 ± 0.5 vs 2.7 ± 0.5) (P < .001); however, it was not significantly different from that of BPH (4.3 ± 0.6) (P = .27). Sector-based comparison with histopathologic analysis, including all tumors, revealed sensitivity and specificity of 67% and 66%, respectively, for (18)F FACBC PET/CT and 73% and 79%, respectively, for T2-weighted MR imaging. (18)F FACBC PET/CT and MP MR imaging were used to localize dominant tumors (sensitivity of 90% for both). Combined (18)F FACBC and MR imaging yielded positive predictive value of 82% for tumor localization, which was higher than that with either modality alone (P < .001). CONCLUSION: (18)F FACBC PET/CT shows higher uptake in intraprostatic tumor foci than in normal prostate tissue; however, (18)F FACBC uptake in tumors is similar to that in BPH nodules. Thus, it is not specific for prostate cancer. Nevertheless, combined (18)F FACBC PET/CT and T2-weighted MR imaging enable more accurate localization of prostate cancer lesions than either modality alone. RSNA, 2013
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: Vijay Shah; Thomas Pohida; Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Maria Merino; Peter A Pinto; Peter Choyke; Marcelino Bernardo Journal: Rev Sci Instrum Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 1.523
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: Ivan Jambor; Ronald Borra; Jukka Kemppainen; Virva Lepomäki; Riitta Parkkola; Kirsti Dean; Kalle Alanen; Eveliina Arponen; Martti Nurmi; Hannu J Aronen; Heikki Minn Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-10-18 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: T M Shoup; J Olson; J M Hoffman; J Votaw; D Eshima; L Eshima; V M Camp; M Stabin; D Votaw; M M Goodman Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Steven P Rowe; Kenneth L Gage; Sheila F Faraj; Katarzyna J Macura; Toby C Cornish; Nilda Gonzalez-Roibon; Gunes Guner; Enrico Munari; Alan W Partin; Christian P Pavlovich; Misop Han; H Ballentine Carter; Trinity J Bivalacqua; Amanda Blackford; Daniel Holt; Robert F Dannals; George J Netto; Martin A Lodge; Ronnie C Mease; Martin G Pomper; Steve Y Cho Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Mohammad H Bagheri; Mark A Ahlman; Liza Lindenberg; Baris Turkbey; Jeffrey Lin; Ali Cahid Civelek; Ashkan A Malayeri; Piyush K Agarwal; Peter L Choyke; Les R Folio; Andrea B Apolo Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Esther Mena; Liza Lindenberg; Stephen Adler; Sandra Bednarova; Rose Berman; Anita T Ton; Yolanda McKinney; Philip Eclarinal; Craig Hill; George Afari; Sibaprasad Bhattacharyya; Ronnie C Mease; Maria J Merino; Paula M Jacobs; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Martin G Pomper; Peter L Choyke Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 7.794
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: Ivan Jambor; Anna Kuisma; Esa Kähkönen; Jukka Kemppainen; Harri Merisaari; Olli Eskola; Jarmo Teuho; Ileana Montoya Perez; Marko Pesola; Hannu J Aronen; Peter J Boström; Pekka Taimen; Heikki Minn Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 9.236