Anna M Brown1,2, Maria L Lindenberg1, Sandeep Sankineni1, Joanna H Shih3, Linda M Johnson1, Suneha Pruthy1, Karen A Kurdziel1, Maria J Merino4, Bradford J Wood5,6, Peter A Pinto7, Peter L Choyke1, Baris Turkbey8. 1. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 10 Center Drive, Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA. 2. Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. 3. Biometric Research Branch, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA. 4. Laboratory of Pathology, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA. 5. Center for Interventional Oncology, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA. 6. Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA. 7. Urologic Oncology Branch, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA. 8. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 10 Center Drive, Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA. turkbeyi@mail.nih.gov.
Abstract
PURPOSE: (18)F-FDG PET/CT is used to characterize many malignancies, but is not recommended for localized prostate cancer. This study explores the value of multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) in characterizing incidental prostate (18)F-FDG uptake. METHODS: Thirty-one patients who underwent (18)F-FDG PET/CT for reasons unrelated to prostate cancer and prostate mpMRI were eligible for this retrospective study. The mpMRI included T2-weighted (T2W), dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and MR spectroscopy (MRS) sequences. Fourteen patients were excluded (n = 8 insufficient histopathology, n = 6 radical prostatectomy before PET), and final analysis included 17 patients. A nuclear medicine physician, blinded to clinicopathologic findings, identified suspicious areas and maximum standardized uptake values (SUV max) on (18)F-FDG PET/CT. Sector-based imaging findings were correlated with annotated histopathology from whole-mount or MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy samples. Positive predictive values (PPVs) were estimated using generalized estimating equations with logit link. Results were evaluated with Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's multiple comparisons tests. RESULTS: The PPV of (18)F-FDG PET alone in detecting prostate cancer was 0.65. Combining (18)F-FDG PET as a base parameter with mpMRI (T2W, DCE, ADC, and MRS) increased the PPV to 0.82, 0.83, 0.83, and 0.94, respectively. All benign lesions had SUV max < 6. Malignant lesions had higher SUV max values that correlated with Gleason scores. There was a significant difference in SUV max per prostate between the Gleason ≥ 4 + 5 and benign categories (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Focal incidental prostate (18)F-FDG uptake has low clinical utility alone, but regions of uptake may harbor high-grade prostate cancer, especially if SUV max > 6. Using mpMRI to further evaluate incidental (18)F-FDG uptake aids the diagnosis of prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: (18)F-FDG PET/CT is used to characterize many malignancies, but is not recommended for localized prostate cancer. This study explores the value of multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) in characterizing incidental prostate (18)F-FDG uptake. METHODS: Thirty-one patients who underwent (18)F-FDG PET/CT for reasons unrelated to prostate cancer and prostate mpMRI were eligible for this retrospective study. The mpMRI included T2-weighted (T2W), dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and MR spectroscopy (MRS) sequences. Fourteen patients were excluded (n = 8 insufficient histopathology, n = 6 radical prostatectomy before PET), and final analysis included 17 patients. A nuclear medicine physician, blinded to clinicopathologic findings, identified suspicious areas and maximum standardized uptake values (SUV max) on (18)F-FDG PET/CT. Sector-based imaging findings were correlated with annotated histopathology from whole-mount or MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy samples. Positive predictive values (PPVs) were estimated using generalized estimating equations with logit link. Results were evaluated with Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's multiple comparisons tests. RESULTS: The PPV of (18)F-FDG PET alone in detecting prostate cancer was 0.65. Combining (18)F-FDG PET as a base parameter with mpMRI (T2W, DCE, ADC, and MRS) increased the PPV to 0.82, 0.83, 0.83, and 0.94, respectively. All benign lesions had SUV max < 6. Malignant lesions had higher SUV max values that correlated with Gleason scores. There was a significant difference in SUV max per prostate between the Gleason ≥ 4 + 5 and benign categories (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Focal incidental prostate (18)F-FDG uptake has low clinical utility alone, but regions of uptake may harbor high-grade prostate cancer, especially if SUV max > 6. Using mpMRI to further evaluate incidental (18)F-FDG uptake aids the diagnosis of prostate cancer.
Entities:
Keywords:
18F-FDG PET; Incidental FDG uptake; Multi-parametric MRI; Prostate cancer
Authors: Vijay Shah; Thomas Pohida; Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Maria Merino; Peter A Pinto; Peter Choyke; Marcelino Bernardo Journal: Rev Sci Instrum Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 1.523
Authors: Esther Mena; Maria Liza Lindenberg; Baris I Turkbey; Joanna Shih; Jean Logan; Stephen Adler; Karen Wong; Wyndham Wilson; Peter L Choyke; Karen A Kurdziel Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Nabeel A Shakir; Arvin K George; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Jason T Rothwax; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Lambros Stamatakis; Daniel Su; Chinonyerem Okoro; Dima Raskolnikov; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Richard Simon; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-08-09 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Peter A Pinto; Paul H Chung; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Angelo A Baccala; Jochen Kruecker; Compton J Benjamin; Sheng Xu; Pingkun Yan; Samuel Kadoury; Celene Chua; Julia K Locklin; Baris Turkbey; Joanna H Shih; Stacey P Gates; Carey Buckner; Gennady Bratslavsky; W Marston Linehan; Neil D Glossop; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Hossein Jadvar; Bhushan Desai; Lingyun Ji; Peter S Conti; Tanya B Dorff; Susan G Groshen; Jacek K Pinski; David I Quinn Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-06-19 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Lisa A Min; Francesca Castagnoli; Wouter V Vogel; Jisk P Vellenga; Joost J M van Griethuysen; Max J Lahaye; Monique Maas; Regina G H Beets Tan; Doenja M J Lambregts Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-08-13 Impact factor: 3.629