PURPOSE: (2RS,4S)-2-[(18)F]Fluoro-4-phosphonomethyl-pentanedioic acid (BAY1075553) shows increased uptake in prostate cancer cells. We compared the diagnostic potential of positron emission tomography (PET)-X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging using BAY1075553 versus [(18)F]f luorocholine (FCH) PET-CT. PROCEDURES: Twelve prostate cancer patients (nine staging, three re-staging) were included. The mean prostate-specific antigen in the primary staging and re-staging groups was 21.5 ± 12 and 73.6 ± 33 ng/ml, respectively. Gleason score ranged from 5-9. In nine patients imaged for pre-operative staging, the median Gleason score was 8 (range, 7-9). PET acquisition started with dynamic PET images in the pelvic region followed by static whole-body acquisition. The patients were monitored for 5-8 days afterward for adverse events. RESULTS: There were no relevant changes in laboratory values or physical examination. Urinary bladder wall received the largest dose equivalent 0.12 mSv/MBq. The whole-body mean effective dose was 0.015 mSv/MBq. There was a significant correlation between detected prostatic lesions by the two imaging modalities (Kappa = 0.356, P < 0.001) and no significant difference in sensitivity (P = 0.16) and specificity (P = 0.41). The sensitivity and specificity of PET imaging using BAY1075553 for lymph node (LN) staging was 42.9 % and 100 %, while it was 81.2 % and 50 % using FCH. The two modalities were closely correlated regarding detection of LNs and bone metastases, although BAY1075553 failed to detect a bone marrow metastasis. Degenerative bone lesions often displayed intense uptake of BAY1075553. CONCLUSIONS: BAY1075553 PET-CT produced no adverse effects, was well tolerated, and detected primary and metastatic prostate cancer. FCH PET-CT results were superior, however, with respect to detecting LN and bone marrow metastases.
PURPOSE:(2RS,4S)-2-[(18)F]Fluoro-4-phosphonomethyl-pentanedioic acid (BAY1075553) shows increased uptake in prostate cancer cells. We compared the diagnostic potential of positron emission tomography (PET)-X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging using BAY1075553 versus [(18)F]f luorocholine (FCH) PET-CT. PROCEDURES: Twelve prostate cancerpatients (nine staging, three re-staging) were included. The mean prostate-specific antigen in the primary staging and re-staging groups was 21.5 ± 12 and 73.6 ± 33 ng/ml, respectively. Gleason score ranged from 5-9. In nine patients imaged for pre-operative staging, the median Gleason score was 8 (range, 7-9). PET acquisition started with dynamic PET images in the pelvic region followed by static whole-body acquisition. The patients were monitored for 5-8 days afterward for adverse events. RESULTS: There were no relevant changes in laboratory values or physical examination. Urinary bladder wall received the largest dose equivalent 0.12 mSv/MBq. The whole-body mean effective dose was 0.015 mSv/MBq. There was a significant correlation between detected prostatic lesions by the two imaging modalities (Kappa = 0.356, P < 0.001) and no significant difference in sensitivity (P = 0.16) and specificity (P = 0.41). The sensitivity and specificity of PET imaging using BAY1075553 for lymph node (LN) staging was 42.9 % and 100 %, while it was 81.2 % and 50 % using FCH. The two modalities were closely correlated regarding detection of LNs and bone metastases, although BAY1075553 failed to detect a bone marrow metastasis. Degenerative bone lesions often displayed intense uptake of BAY1075553. CONCLUSIONS:BAY1075553 PET-CT produced no adverse effects, was well tolerated, and detected primary and metastatic prostate cancer. FCH PET-CT results were superior, however, with respect to detecting LN and bone marrow metastases.
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: 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: P Sácha; J Zámecník; C Barinka; K Hlouchová; A Vícha; P Mlcochová; I Hilgert; T Eckschlager; J Konvalinka Journal: Neuroscience Date: 2006-12-05 Impact factor: 3.590
Authors: J Ferlay; E Steliarova-Foucher; J Lortet-Tieulent; S Rosso; J W W Coebergh; H Comber; D Forman; F Bray Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Jeffrey S Ross; Christine E Sheehan; Hugh A G Fisher; Ronald P Kaufman; Prabhjot Kaur; Karen Gray; Iain Webb; Gary S Gray; Rebecca Mosher; Bhaskar V S Kallakury Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2003-12-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Thomas A Hope; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Matthias Eiber; Louise Emmett; Wolfgang P Fendler; Courtney Lawhn-Heath; Steven P Rowe Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2018-06-27 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Sandeep Sankineni; Anna M Brown; Michele Fascelli; Yan Mee Law; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 3.092
Authors: Steven P Rowe; Alexander Drzezga; Bernd Neumaier; Markus Dietlein; Michael A Gorin; Michael R Zalutsky; Martin G Pomper Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: A P Kiess; S R Banerjee; R C Mease; S P Rowe; A Rao; C A Foss; Y Chen; X Yang; S Y Cho; S Nimmagadda; M G Pomper Journal: Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-07-24 Impact factor: 2.346
Authors: Kristell L S Chatalic; Sandra Heskamp; Mark Konijnenberg; Janneke D M Molkenboer-Kuenen; Gerben M Franssen; Marian C Clahsen-van Groningen; Margret Schottelius; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Wytske M van Weerden; Otto C Boerman; Marion de Jong Journal: Theranostics Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 11.556
Authors: Gaël Amzalag; Olivier Rager; Claire Tabouret-Viaud; Michael Wissmeyer; Electra Sfakianaki; Thomas de Perrot; Osman Ratib; Raymond Miralbell; Giampiero Giovacchini; Valentina Garibotto; Thomas Zilli Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2016-03-31 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Rudolf A Werner; Thorsten Derlin; Constantin Lapa; Sara Sheikbahaei; Takahiro Higuchi; Frederik L Giesel; Spencer Behr; Alexander Drzezga; Hiroyuki Kimura; Andreas K Buck; Frank M Bengel; Martin G Pomper; Michael A Gorin; Steven P Rowe Journal: Theranostics Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 11.556