PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective two-centre study was to investigate the clinical impact of (11)C-choline PET/CT on treatment management decisions in patients with recurrent prostate cancer (rPCa) after radical therapy. METHODS: Enrolled in this retrospective study were 150 patients (95 from Bologna, 55 from Würzburg) with rPCa and biochemical relapse (PSA mean ± SD 4.3 ± 5.5 ng/mL, range 0.2-39.4 ng/mL) after radical therapy. The intended treatment before PET/CT was salvage radiotherapy of the prostatic bed in 95 patients and palliative androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in 55 patients. The effective clinical impact of (11)C-choline PET/CT was rated as major (change in therapeutic approach), minor (same treatment, but modified therapeutic strategy) or none. Multivariate binary logistic regression analysis included PSA level, PSA kinetics, ongoing ADT, Gleason score, TNM, age and time to relapse. RESULTS: Changes in therapy after (11)C-choline PET/CT were implemented in 70 of the 150 patients (46.7%). A major clinical impact was observed in 27 patients (18%) and a minor clinical impact in 43 (28.7%). (11)C-choline PET/CT was positive in 109 patients (72.7%) detecting local relapse (prostate bed and/or iliac lymph nodes and/or pararectal lymph nodes) in 64 patients (42.7%). Distant relapse (paraaortic and/or retroperitoneal lymph nodes and/or bone lesions) was seen in 31 patients (20.7%), and both local and distant relapse in 14 (9.3%). A significant difference was observed in PSA level and PSA kinetics between PET-positive and PET-negative patients (p < 0.05). In multivariate analysis, PSA level, PSA doubling time and ongoing ADT were significant predictors of a positive scan (p < 0.05). In statistical analysis no significant differences were observed between the Bologna and Würzburg patients (p > 0.05). In both centres the same criteria to validate PET-positive findings were used: in 17.3% of patients by histology and in 82.7% of patients by correlative imaging and/or clinical follow-up (follow-up mean 20.5 months, median 18.3 months, range 6.2-60 months). CONCLUSION: (11)C-Choline PET/CT had a significant impact on therapeutic management in rPCa patients. It led to an overall change in 46.7% of patients, with a major clinical change implemented in 18% of patients. Further prospective studies are needed to evaluate the effect of such treatment changes on patient survival.
PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective two-centre study was to investigate the clinical impact of (11)C-choline PET/CT on treatment management decisions in patients with recurrent prostate cancer (rPCa) after radical therapy. METHODS: Enrolled in this retrospective study were 150 patients (95 from Bologna, 55 from Würzburg) with rPCa and biochemical relapse (PSA mean ± SD 4.3 ± 5.5 ng/mL, range 0.2-39.4 ng/mL) after radical therapy. The intended treatment before PET/CT was salvage radiotherapy of the prostatic bed in 95 patients and palliative androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in 55 patients. The effective clinical impact of (11)C-choline PET/CT was rated as major (change in therapeutic approach), minor (same treatment, but modified therapeutic strategy) or none. Multivariate binary logistic regression analysis included PSA level, PSA kinetics, ongoing ADT, Gleason score, TNM, age and time to relapse. RESULTS: Changes in therapy after (11)C-choline PET/CT were implemented in 70 of the 150 patients (46.7%). A major clinical impact was observed in 27 patients (18%) and a minor clinical impact in 43 (28.7%). (11)C-choline PET/CT was positive in 109 patients (72.7%) detecting local relapse (prostate bed and/or iliac lymph nodes and/or pararectal lymph nodes) in 64 patients (42.7%). Distant relapse (paraaortic and/or retroperitoneal lymph nodes and/or bone lesions) was seen in 31 patients (20.7%), and both local and distant relapse in 14 (9.3%). A significant difference was observed in PSA level and PSA kinetics between PET-positive and PET-negative patients (p < 0.05). In multivariate analysis, PSA level, PSA doubling time and ongoing ADT were significant predictors of a positive scan (p < 0.05). In statistical analysis no significant differences were observed between the Bologna and Würzburg patients (p > 0.05). In both centres the same criteria to validate PET-positive findings were used: in 17.3% of patients by histology and in 82.7% of patients by correlative imaging and/or clinical follow-up (follow-up mean 20.5 months, median 18.3 months, range 6.2-60 months). CONCLUSION: (11)C-Choline PET/CT had a significant impact on therapeutic management in rPCa patients. It led to an overall change in 46.7% of patients, with a major clinical change implemented in 18% of patients. Further prospective studies are needed to evaluate the effect of such treatment changes on patient survival.
Authors: Giampiero Giovacchini; Maria Picchio; Rita Garcia-Parra; Alberto Briganti; Firas Abdollah; Luigi Gianolli; Christian Schindler; Francesco Montorsi; Cristina Messa; Ferruccio Fazio Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-01-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: James Mohler; Robert R Bahnson; Barry Boston; J Erik Busby; Anthony D'Amico; James A Eastham; Charles A Enke; Daniel George; Eric Mark Horwitz; Robert P Huben; Philip Kantoff; Mark Kawachi; Michael Kuettel; Paul H Lange; Gary Macvicar; Elizabeth R Plimack; Julio M Pow-Sang; Mack Roach; Eric Rohren; Bruce J Roth; Dennis C Shrieve; Matthew R Smith; Sandy Srinivas; Przemyslaw Twardowski; Patrick C Walsh Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 11.908
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: Masood A Khan; H Ballentine Carter; Jonathan I Epstein; Michael C Miller; Patricia Landis; Patrick W Walsh; Alan W Partin; Robert W Veltri Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Andrew J Stephenson; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan; Thomas M Pisansky; Kevin M Slawin; Eric A Klein; Mitchell S Anscher; Jeff M Michalski; Howard M Sandler; Daniel W Lin; Jeffrey D Forman; Michael J Zelefsky; Larry L Kestin; Claus G Roehrborn; Charles N Catton; Theodore L DeWeese; Stanley L Liauw; Richard K Valicenti; Deborah A Kuban; Alan Pollack Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-05-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Francesco Ceci; Christian Uprimny; Bernhard Nilica; Llanos Geraldo; Dorota Kendler; Alexander Kroiss; Jasmin Bektic; Wolfgang Horninger; Peter Lukas; Clemens Decristoforo; Paolo Castellucci; Stefano Fanti; Irene J Virgolini Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-05-15 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: C Sachpekidis; M Eder; K Kopka; W Mier; B A Hadaschik; U Haberkorn; A Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 9.236
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: 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