Laura Evangelista1, Marino Cimitan2, Fabio Zattoni3, Andrea Guttilla3, Filiberto Zattoni3, Giorgio Saladini1. 1. a 1 Radiotherapy and Nuclear Medicine Unit, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV-IRCCS , Padua, Italy. 2. b 2 Nuclear Medicine Unit, National Cancer Institute CRO-IRCCS , Aviano (PN), Italy , and. 3. c 3 Department of Oncological and Surgical Sciences, Urology Clinic, University of Padua , Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of [(18)F]fluorocholine positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FCH PET/CT) in detecting lymph-node and bone involvement in comparison with conventional imaging, such as abdominal-pelvic CT and bone scan, in the initial staging of prostate cancer (PCa). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study retrospectively evaluated 48 patients who had FCH PET/CT for the initial staging of PCa. At the same time, 32 of the 48 patients had a bone scan and 26 of the 48 patients had abdominal-pelvic diagnostic CT. Diagnostic performance of FCH PET/CT, i.e. sensitivity, specificity and accuracy, was evaluated on a per-patient basis for the whole population and then separately on a per-risk classification, and later in comparison with conventional imaging. Histological specimens or follow-up data were used as the standard of reference. RESULTS: The overall accuracy of FCH PET/CT for lymph-node involvement was 83.3%. The sensitivity of FCH was higher in the high-risk subset (83.3%) than in the intermediate-risk group (33.3%), whereas FCH specificity was similar. In comparison with dedicated CT scan, FCH PET/CT showed a higher sensitivity and a similar specificity (46.2% vs 69.2% and 92.3% vs 92.3%, respectively). Moreover, the sensitivity and specificity of PET/CT were higher than those of bone scan (100% vs 90% and 86.4% vs 77.2%, respectively). In contrast with conventional imaging, PET/CT changed the staging of the PCa in 33.3% patients. CONCLUSIONS: The efficiency of FCH PET/CT in detecting both bone and lymph-node involvement of PCa at initial staging was found to be higher than that of conventional imaging. Prospective clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of [(18)F]fluorocholine positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FCH PET/CT) in detecting lymph-node and bone involvement in comparison with conventional imaging, such as abdominal-pelvic CT and bone scan, in the initial staging of prostate cancer (PCa). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study retrospectively evaluated 48 patients who had FCH PET/CT for the initial staging of PCa. At the same time, 32 of the 48 patients had a bone scan and 26 of the 48 patients had abdominal-pelvic diagnostic CT. Diagnostic performance of FCH PET/CT, i.e. sensitivity, specificity and accuracy, was evaluated on a per-patient basis for the whole population and then separately on a per-risk classification, and later in comparison with conventional imaging. Histological specimens or follow-up data were used as the standard of reference. RESULTS: The overall accuracy of FCH PET/CT for lymph-node involvement was 83.3%. The sensitivity of FCH was higher in the high-risk subset (83.3%) than in the intermediate-risk group (33.3%), whereas FCH specificity was similar. In comparison with dedicated CT scan, FCH PET/CT showed a higher sensitivity and a similar specificity (46.2% vs 69.2% and 92.3% vs 92.3%, respectively). Moreover, the sensitivity and specificity of PET/CT were higher than those of bone scan (100% vs 90% and 86.4% vs 77.2%, respectively). In contrast with conventional imaging, PET/CT changed the staging of the PCa in 33.3% patients. CONCLUSIONS: The efficiency of FCH PET/CT in detecting both bone and lymph-node involvement of PCa at initial staging was found to be higher than that of conventional imaging. Prospective clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone scan; choline PET; computed tomography; prostate cancer; staging
Authors: A J Conde-Moreno; G Herrando-Parreño; R Muelas-Soria; J Ferrer-Rebolleda; R Broseta-Torres; M P Cozar-Santiago; F García-Piñón; C Ferrer-Albiach Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Mehrdad Alemozaffar; Akinyemi A Akintayo; Olayinka A Abiodun-Ojo; Dattatraya Patil; Faisal Saeed; Yijian Huang; Adeboye O Osunkoya; Mark M Goodman; Martin Sanda; David M Schuster Journal: J Urol Date: 2020-04-29 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Daniela A Ferraro; Helena I Garcia Schüler; Urs J Muehlematter; Daniel Eberli; Julian Müller; Alexander Müller; Roger Gablinger; Helmut Kranzbühler; Aurelius Omlin; Philipp A Kaufmann; Thomas Hermanns; Irene A Burger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-12-04 Impact factor: 9.236