Francesco Ceci1,2, Paolo Castellucci3, Tiziano Graziani3, Riccardo Schiavina4, Riccardo Renzi3, Marco Borghesi4, Piergiorgio Di Tullio5, Eugenio Brunocilla4, Andrea Ardizzoni5, Stefano Fanti3. 1. Service of Nuclear Medicine, S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. francesco.ceci83@gmail.com. 2. UO Medicina Nucleare PAD. 30, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Policlinico S.Orsola-Malpighi, Via Massarenti, 9, 40138, Bologna, Italy. francesco.ceci83@gmail.com. 3. Service of Nuclear Medicine, S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 4. Department of Urology, S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 5. Department of Oncology, S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the role of (11)C-choline PET/CT for evaluating the response to treatment in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with docetaxel in comparison with PSA response. METHODS: Inclusion criteria were (a) proven mCRPC, (b) docetaxel as first line of chemotherapy (docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) + prednisone 5 mg), and (c) (11)C-choline PET/CT and PSA values assessed before and after docetaxel administration. A total of 61 patients were retrospectively enrolled (mean age 68.9 years, range 57 - 84 years). (11)C-Choline PET/CT was performed at baseline before docetaxel treatment (PET1) and after the end of treatment (PET2). PSA values were measured before treatment (PSA1) and after treatment (PSA2). PET2 was reported as complete response (CR), partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD). Progressive disease (PD) was considered if a new lesion was seen. PSA trend was calculated from the change in absolute values between PSA1 and PSA2. A decrease of ≥50 % between PSA1 and PSA2 was considered a PSA response. Clinical, radiological and laboratory follow-up ranged from 6 to 53 months (mean 13.5 months). RESULTS: Of the 61 patients, 40 (65.5 %) showed PD on PET2, 13 (21.3 %) showed SD, 2 (3.4 %) showed PR, and 6 (9.8 %) showed CR. An increasing PSA trend was seen in 29 patients (47.5 %) and a decreasing PSA trend in 32 patients (52.5 %). A PSA response of ≥50 % was seen in 25 patients (41 %). Radiological PD was seen in 23 of the 29 patients (79.3 %) with an increasing PSA trend, in 16 of the 32 patients (50 %) with a decreasing PSA trend, and in 11 of the 25 patients (44 %) with a PSA response of ≥50 %. In the multivariate statistical analysis, the presence of more than ten bone lesions detected on PET1 was significantly associated with an increased probability of PD on PET2. No association was observed between PSA level and PD on PET2. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that an increasing PSA trend measured after docetaxel treatment could be considered predictive of PD. In patients with decreasing PSA values (decreasing PSA trend and a PSA response of ≥50 %), (11)C-choline PET/CT may be useful to identify those with radiological progression despite a PSA response. Finally, the tumour burden, expressed as number of bone lesions on PET1, is significantly associated with an increased probability of PD on PET2.
PURPOSE: To investigate the role of (11)C-choline PET/CT for evaluating the response to treatment in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with docetaxel in comparison with PSA response. METHODS: Inclusion criteria were (a) proven mCRPC, (b) docetaxel as first line of chemotherapy (docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) + prednisone 5 mg), and (c) (11)C-choline PET/CT and PSA values assessed before and after docetaxel administration. A total of 61 patients were retrospectively enrolled (mean age 68.9 years, range 57 - 84 years). (11)C-Choline PET/CT was performed at baseline before docetaxel treatment (PET1) and after the end of treatment (PET2). PSA values were measured before treatment (PSA1) and after treatment (PSA2). PET2 was reported as complete response (CR), partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD). Progressive disease (PD) was considered if a new lesion was seen. PSA trend was calculated from the change in absolute values between PSA1 and PSA2. A decrease of ≥50 % between PSA1 and PSA2 was considered a PSA response. Clinical, radiological and laboratory follow-up ranged from 6 to 53 months (mean 13.5 months). RESULTS: Of the 61 patients, 40 (65.5 %) showed PD on PET2, 13 (21.3 %) showed SD, 2 (3.4 %) showed PR, and 6 (9.8 %) showed CR. An increasing PSA trend was seen in 29 patients (47.5 %) and a decreasing PSA trend in 32 patients (52.5 %). A PSA response of ≥50 % was seen in 25 patients (41 %). Radiological PD was seen in 23 of the 29 patients (79.3 %) with an increasing PSA trend, in 16 of the 32 patients (50 %) with a decreasing PSA trend, and in 11 of the 25 patients (44 %) with a PSA response of ≥50 %. In the multivariate statistical analysis, the presence of more than ten bone lesions detected on PET1 was significantly associated with an increased probability of PD on PET2. No association was observed between PSA level and PD on PET2. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that an increasing PSA trend measured after docetaxel treatment could be considered predictive of PD. In patients with decreasing PSA values (decreasing PSA trend and a PSA response of ≥50 %), (11)C-choline PET/CT may be useful to identify those with radiological progression despite a PSA response. Finally, the tumour burden, expressed as number of bone lesions on PET1, is significantly associated with an increased probability of PD on PET2.
Authors: Charles J Ryan; Shreya Shah; Eleni Efstathiou; Matthew R Smith; Mary-Ellen Taplin; Glenn J Bubley; Christopher J Logothetis; Thian Kheoh; Christine Kilian; Christopher M Haqq; Arturo Molina; Eric J Small Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-06-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Srikala S Sridhar; Stephen J Freedland; Martin E Gleave; Celestia Higano; Peter Mulders; Chris Parker; Oliver Sartor; Fred Saad Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-08-11 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: H Young; R Baum; U Cremerius; K Herholz; O Hoekstra; A A Lammertsma; J Pruim; P Price Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 9.162
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: 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: John M Fitzpatrick; Joaquim Bellmunt; Karim Fizazi; Axel Heidenreich; Cora N Sternberg; Bertrand Tombal; Antonio Alcaraz; Amit Bahl; Sergio Bracarda; Giuseppe Di Lorenzo; Eleni Efstathiou; Stephen P Finn; Sophie Fosså; Silke Gillessen; Pirkko-Liisa Kellokumpu-Lehtinen; Frédéric E Lecouvet; Stephane Oudard; Theo M de Reijke; Craig N Robson; Maria De Santis; Bostjan Seruga; Ronald de Wit Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2014-04-03 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Anna Katharina Seitz; Isabel Rauscher; Bernhard Haller; Markus Krönke; Sophia Luther; Matthias M Heck; Thomas Horn; Jürgen E Gschwend; Markus Schwaiger; Matthias Eiber; Tobias Maurer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Simona Malaspina; Ugo De Giorgi; Jukka Kemppainen; Angelo Del Sole; Giovanni Paganelli Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2018-08-16 Impact factor: 3.469