PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of DWI and 11C-choline PET/CT in the assessment of preoperative lymph node status in patients with primary prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-three patients underwent DWI and 11C-choline PET/CT prior to prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Mean standardised uptake value (SUV(mean)) and mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of 76 identified lymph nodes (LN) were measured and correlated with histopathology. ADC values and SUVs were compared using linear regression analysis. RESULTS: A significant difference between benign and malignant LN was observed for ADC values (1.17 vs. 0.96 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s; P < 0.001) and SUV(mean) (1.61 vs. 3.20; P < 0.001). ROC analysis revealed an optimal ADC threshold of 1.01 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s for differentiating benign from malignant LN with corresponding sensitivity/specificity of 69.70%/78.57% and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.785. The optimal threshold for SUV(mean) was 2.5 with corresponding sensitivity/specificity of 69.72%/90.48% and with an AUC of 0.832. ADC values and SUV(mean) showed a moderate significant inverse correlation (r = -0.63). CONCLUSION: Both modalities reveal similar moderate diagnostic performance for preoperative lymph node staging of prostate cancer, not justifying their application in routine clinical practice at this time. The only moderate inverse correlation between ADC values and SUV(mean) suggests that both imaging parameters might provide complementary information on tumour biology. KEY POINTS: • Conventional imaging shows low performance for lymph node staging in prostate cancer. • DWI and 11C-choline PET/CT both provide additional functional information • Both functional modalities reveal only moderate diagnostic performance.
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of DWI and 11C-choline PET/CT in the assessment of preoperative lymph node status in patients with primary prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-three patients underwent DWI and 11C-choline PET/CT prior to prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Mean standardised uptake value (SUV(mean)) and mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of 76 identified lymph nodes (LN) were measured and correlated with histopathology. ADC values and SUVs were compared using linear regression analysis. RESULTS: A significant difference between benign and malignant LN was observed for ADC values (1.17 vs. 0.96 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s; P < 0.001) and SUV(mean) (1.61 vs. 3.20; P < 0.001). ROC analysis revealed an optimal ADC threshold of 1.01 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s for differentiating benign from malignant LN with corresponding sensitivity/specificity of 69.70%/78.57% and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.785. The optimal threshold for SUV(mean) was 2.5 with corresponding sensitivity/specificity of 69.72%/90.48% and with an AUC of 0.832. ADC values and SUV(mean) showed a moderate significant inverse correlation (r = -0.63). CONCLUSION: Both modalities reveal similar moderate diagnostic performance for preoperative lymph node staging of prostate cancer, not justifying their application in routine clinical practice at this time. The only moderate inverse correlation between ADC values and SUV(mean) suggests that both imaging parameters might provide complementary information on tumour biology. KEY POINTS: • Conventional imaging shows low performance for lymph node staging in prostate cancer. • DWI and 11C-choline PET/CT both provide additional functional information • Both functional modalities reveal only moderate diagnostic performance.
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: Liang Wang; Hedvig Hricak; Michael W Kattan; Lawrence H Schwartz; Steven C Eberhardt; Hui-Ni Chen; Peter T Scardino Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 3.959
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: Matthias T Wyss; Bruno Weber; Michael Honer; Nicolas Späth; Simon M Ametamey; Gerrit Westera; Beata Bode; Achim H Kaim; Alfred Buck Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2003-11-20 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Harriet C Thoeny; Sebastiano Barbieri; Johannes M Froehlich; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sarah M Schwarzenböck; Jan Stenzel; Thomas Otto; Heike V Helldorff; Carina Bergner; Jens Kurth; Stefan Polei; Tobias Lindner; Romina Rauer; Alexander Hohn; Oliver W Hakenberg; Hans J Wester; Brigitte Vollmar; Bernd J Krause Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-09-16