Literature DB >> 25655681

Final analysis of a prospective trial on functional imaging for nodal staging in patients with prostate cancer at high risk for lymph node involvement.

Laura Van den Bergh1, Evelyne Lerut2, Karin Haustermans3, Christophe M Deroose4, Raymond Oyen5, Sofie Isebaert3, Tom Budiharto6, Filip Ameye7, Felix M Mottaghy8, Kris Bogaerts9, Hendrik Van Poppel7, Steven Joniau7.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Accurate staging modalities to diagnose lymph node involvement in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) are lacking. We wanted to prospectively assess sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value of (11)C-choline positron emission tomography (PET)-computed tomography (CT) and diffusion-weighted (DW) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for nodal staging in patients with PCa at high risk for lymph node involvement.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: In total, 75 patients with a risk≥10% but<35% for lymph node (LN) metastases (Partin tables) who had N0 lesions based on the findings of contrast-enhanced CT scans were included. Patients underwent (11)C-choline PET-CT and DW MRI before surgery, which consisted of a superextended lymph node dissection followed by radical prostatectomy. LNs were serially sectioned and histopathologically examined after pankeratin staining. These results were used as the gold standard to compare with the imaging results.
RESULTS: Of 1,665 resected LNs (median = 21, range: 7-49), 106 affected LNs (median = 2, range: 1-10) were found in 37 of 75 patients (49%). On a region-based analysis, we found a low sensitivity of 8.2% and 9.5% and a PPV of 50.0% and 40.0% for (11)C-choline PET-CT and DW MRI, respectively. The patient-based analysis showed a sensitivity of 18.9% and 36.1% for and a PPV of 63.6% and 86.7% (11)C-choline PET-CT and DW MRI, respectively. Even when both imaging modalities were combined, sensitivity values remained too low to be clinically useful.
CONCLUSIONS: Because of the low sensitivity, there is no indication for routine clinical use of either (11)C-choline PET-CT or DW MRI for LN staging in patients with PCa, in whom CT scan findings were normal.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging; Lymph nodes; Positron emission tomography; Prostatic neoplasms; Staging

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25655681     DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.11.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Oncol        ISSN: 1078-1439            Impact factor:   3.498


  24 in total

1.  Prostate cancer: Can imaging accurately diagnose lymph node involvement?

Authors:  Jelle O Barentsz; Harriet C Thoeny
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-05-05       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  Preoperative multiparametric MRI of the prostate for the prediction of lymph node metastases in prostate cancer patients treated with extended pelvic lymph node dissection.

Authors:  Giorgio Brembilla; Paolo Dell'Oglio; Armando Stabile; Alessandro Ambrosi; Giulia Cristel; Lisa Brunetti; Anna Damascelli; Massimo Freschi; Antonio Esposito; Alberto Briganti; Francesco Montorsi; Alessandro Del Maschio; Francesco De Cobelli
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-12-21       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  68Ga-PSMA PET/CT compared with MRI/CT and diffusion-weighted MRI for primary lymph node staging prior to definitive radiotherapy in prostate cancer: a prospective diagnostic test accuracy study.

Authors:  Lars J Petersen; Julie B Nielsen; Niels C Langkilde; Astrid Petersen; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Nandita M De Souza; Katja De Paepe; Rune V Fisker; Dennis T Arp; Jesper Carl; Uwe Haberkorn; Helle D Zacho
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-06-12       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Significance of examined lymph-node count in accurate staging and long-term survival in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: a population-based study.

Authors:  Cheng Chen; Jie Shen; Zhaoyu Xing; Changchuan Jiang; Linkun Hu; Li Cui; Dong Xue; Xiaozhou He; Renfang Xu
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2019-09-30       Impact factor: 2.370

5.  [18F]Fluciclovine Positron Emission Tomography/Computerized Tomography for Preoperative Staging in Patients with Intermediate to High Risk Primary Prostate Cancer.

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

Review 6.  Non-metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer: a call for improved guidance on clinical management.

Authors:  Francois Rozet; Thierry Roumeguère; Martin Spahn; Dirk Beyersdorff; Peter Hammerer
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-03-17       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Impact of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET staging on clinical decision-making in patients with intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer.

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

Review 8.  Therapeutic Value of Standard Versus Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection During Radical Prostatectomy for High-Risk Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Michele Colicchia; Vidit Sharma; Firas Abdollah; Alberto Briganti; R Jeffrey Karnes
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 9.  PET imaging for lymph node dissection in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Elena Incerti; Paola Mapelli; Luigi Gianolli; Maria Picchio
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 4.226

10.  Patched 1 Expression Correlates with Biochemical Relapse in High-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Annelies Gonnissen; Sofie Isebaert; Christiaan Perneel; Chad M McKee; Filip Van Utterbeeck; Evelyne Lerut; Clare Verrill; Richard J Bryant; Steven Joniau; Ruth J Muschel; Karin Haustermans
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  2018-01-12       Impact factor: 4.307

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.