Urban Simoncic1, Scott Perlman, Glenn Liu, Robert Jeraj. 1. aJozef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia Departments of bMedical Physics cRadiology dGenitourinary Oncology Research Program eUniversity of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: PET/computed tomography (CT) imaging with the sodium-(F)-fluoride/2-(F)-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (F-NaF/F-FDG) cocktail has been proposed for patients with osseous metastases. This work aimed to optimize the cocktail composition for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was carried out on six patients with mCRPC, with a total of 26 analyzed lesions. The patients were injected with F-NaF and F-FDG at separate time points. Dynamic PET/CT imaging recorded the uptake time course for both the tracers into osseous metastases. F-NaF and F-FDG uptakes were decoupled by kinetic analysis, which enabled calculation of F-NaF and F-FDG standardized uptake values (SUVs) images. Peak, mean, and total SUVs were evaluated for both tracers and all visible lesions. The F-NaF/F-FDG cocktail was optimized under the assumption that the contribution of both tracers to image formation is equal. SUV images from PET/CT imaging with a combination of F-NaF and F-FDG were generated for cocktail compositions with an F-NaF : F-FDG ratio varying from 1 : 8 to 1 : 2. RESULTS: The F-NaF peak and mean SUVs were on average four to five times higher than the F-FDG peak and mean SUVs, with an interlesion coefficient of variations of 20%. The total SUV for F-NaF was on average seven times higher than that for F-FDG. When the F-NaF : F-FDG ratio changed from 1 : 8 to 1 : 2, the typical SUV on the generated PET images increased by 50%, whereas the change in the uptake visual pattern was hardly noticeable. CONCLUSION: F-NaF and F-FDG in the cocktail contribute equally to image formation when the F-NaF : F-FDG ratio is 1 : 5. Therefore, we propose this ratio as the optimal cocktail composition for mCRPC patients. We also urge to strictly control the cocktail composition during any F-NaF/F-FDG cocktail PET/CT examination.
BACKGROUND: PET/computed tomography (CT) imaging with the sodium-(F)-fluoride/2-(F)-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (F-NaF/F-FDG) cocktail has been proposed for patients with osseous metastases. This work aimed to optimize the cocktail composition for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was carried out on six patients with mCRPC, with a total of 26 analyzed lesions. The patients were injected with F-NaF and F-FDG at separate time points. Dynamic PET/CT imaging recorded the uptake time course for both the tracers into osseous metastases. F-NaF and F-FDG uptakes were decoupled by kinetic analysis, which enabled calculation of F-NaF and F-FDG standardized uptake values (SUVs) images. Peak, mean, and total SUVs were evaluated for both tracers and all visible lesions. The F-NaF/F-FDG cocktail was optimized under the assumption that the contribution of both tracers to image formation is equal. SUV images from PET/CT imaging with a combination of F-NaF and F-FDG were generated for cocktail compositions with an F-NaF : F-FDG ratio varying from 1 : 8 to 1 : 2. RESULTS: The F-NaF peak and mean SUVs were on average four to five times higher than the F-FDG peak and mean SUVs, with an interlesion coefficient of variations of 20%. The total SUV for F-NaF was on average seven times higher than that for F-FDG. When the F-NaF : F-FDG ratio changed from 1 : 8 to 1 : 2, the typical SUV on the generated PET images increased by 50%, whereas the change in the uptake visual pattern was hardly noticeable. CONCLUSION: F-NaF and F-FDG in the cocktail contribute equally to image formation when the F-NaF : F-FDG ratio is 1 : 5. Therefore, we propose this ratio as the optimal cocktail composition for mCRPC patients. We also urge to strictly control the cocktail composition during any F-NaF/F-FDG cocktail PET/CT examination.
Authors: Robert K Doot; Mark Muzi; Lanell M Peterson; Erin K Schubert; Julie R Gralow; Jennifer M Specht; David A Mankoff Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-03-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: R A Hawkins; Y Choi; S C Huang; C K Hoh; M Dahlbom; C Schiepers; N Satyamurthy; J R Barrio; M E Phelps Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1992-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Andrei Iagaru; Erik Mittra; Camila Mosci; David W Dick; Mike Sathekge; Vineet Prakash; Victor Iyer; Paula Lapa; Jorge Isidoro; Joao M de Lima; Sanjiv Sam Gambhir Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-12-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jacob Farnebo; Agnes Wadelius; Per Sandström; Sten Nilsson; Hans Jacobsson; Lennart Blomqvist; Anders Ullén Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 1.889