Agostino Chiaravalloti1, Daniele Di Biagio2, Mario Tavolozza2, Ferdinando Calabria3, Orazio Schillaci2,4. 1. Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, University Tor Vergata, viale Oxford 81, 00133, Rome, Italy. agostino.chiaravalloti@gmail.com. 2. Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, University Tor Vergata, viale Oxford 81, 00133, Rome, Italy. 3. Neuroimaging Research Unit, Institute of Molecular Bioimaging and Physiology - National research Council, Catanzaro, Italy. 4. IRCCS Neuromed, Pozzilli, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the performance of (18)F-fluorocholine ((18)F-FCH) PET/CT in relation to the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetic indexes, PSA doubling time (PSAdt) and PSA velocity (PSAve), in detecting recurrent prostate cancer (PC) in a selected population of patients treated with radical prostatectomy and with PSA ≤2 ng/ml. METHODS: The study group comprised 79 patients (mean age 70 ± 7 years, range 58 - 77 years) who had been treated with radical surgery 30 to 90 months previously and with biochemical failure (defined as a measurable serum PSA level) who were evaluated with (18)F-FCH PET/CT. In order to establish the optimal threshold for PSAdt and PSAve, the diagnostic performance of PSA, PSAdt and PSAve were compared by receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: In the population examined, PSA (mean ± SD) was 1.37 ± 0.44 ng/ml (range 0.21 - 2 ng/ml) before PET/CT examination, PSAdt was 10.04 ± 16.67 months and PSAve was 2.75 ± 3.11 ng/ml per year. (18)F-FCH PET/CT was positive in 44 patients (55 %). PSAve and PSAdt were significantly different between patients with a positive and a negative (18)F-FCH PET/CT scan. Thresholds of 6 months for PSAdt and 1 ng/ml per year for PSAve were selected. For PSAdt ≤6 months the detection rate (DR) was 65 %, and for PSAve >1 ng/ml per year the DR was 67 %. PSA values were not significantly different between patients with a positive and a negative PET/CT scan. CONCLUSION: The results of our study suggest that (18)F-FCH PET/CT could be considered for the evaluation of patients with biochemical recurrence of PC and with low PSA levels. Fast PSA kinetics could be useful in the selection of these patients.
PURPOSE: To investigate the performance of (18)F-fluorocholine ((18)F-FCH) PET/CT in relation to the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetic indexes, PSA doubling time (PSAdt) and PSA velocity (PSAve), in detecting recurrent prostate cancer (PC) in a selected population of patients treated with radical prostatectomy and with PSA ≤2 ng/ml. METHODS: The study group comprised 79 patients (mean age 70 ± 7 years, range 58 - 77 years) who had been treated with radical surgery 30 to 90 months previously and with biochemical failure (defined as a measurable serum PSA level) who were evaluated with (18)F-FCH PET/CT. In order to establish the optimal threshold for PSAdt and PSAve, the diagnostic performance of PSA, PSAdt and PSAve were compared by receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: In the population examined, PSA (mean ± SD) was 1.37 ± 0.44 ng/ml (range 0.21 - 2 ng/ml) before PET/CT examination, PSAdt was 10.04 ± 16.67 months and PSAve was 2.75 ± 3.11 ng/ml per year. (18)F-FCH PET/CT was positive in 44 patients (55 %). PSAve and PSAdt were significantly different between patients with a positive and a negative (18)F-FCH PET/CT scan. Thresholds of 6 months for PSAdt and 1 ng/ml per year for PSAve were selected. For PSAdt ≤6 months the detection rate (DR) was 65 %, and for PSAve >1 ng/ml per year the DR was 67 %. PSA values were not significantly different between patients with a positive and a negative PET/CT scan. CONCLUSION: The results of our study suggest that (18)F-FCH PET/CT could be considered for the evaluation of patients with biochemical recurrence of PC and with low PSA levels. Fast PSA kinetics could be useful in the selection of these patients.
Authors: Ludwig Rinnab; Joerg Simon; Richard E Hautmann; M V Cronauer; Kathrin Hohl; Andreas K Buck; Sven N Reske; Felix M Mottaghy Journal: World J Urol Date: 2009-02-21 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: T R DeGrado; R E Coleman; S Wang; S W Baldwin; M D Orr; C N Robertson; T J Polascik; D T Price Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2001-01-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Vera Graute; Nathalie Jansen; Christopher Ubleis; Michael Seitz; Markus Hartenbach; Michael Karl Scherr; Sven Thieme; Paul Cumming; Katharina Klanke; Reinhold Tiling; Peter Bartenstein; Marcus Hacker Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-11-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Robert Svatek; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Michael Shulman; Jose Karam; Paul Perrotte; Elie Benaim Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2006-01-06 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Stephen J Freedland; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Leslie A Mangold; Mario Eisenberger; Alan W Partin Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 7.450
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: Giampiero Giovacchini; Priscilla Guglielmo; Paola Mapelli; Elena Incerti; Ana Maria Samanes Gajate; Elisabetta Giovannini; Mattia Riondato; Alberto Briganti; Luigi Gianolli; Andrea Ciarmiello; Maria Picchio Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-01-10 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: P Samper Ots; A Luis Cardo; C Vallejo Ocaña; M A Cabeza Rodríguez; L A Glaria Enríquez; M L Couselo Paniagua; J Olivera Vegas Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2018-11-17 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Marieke J Krimphove; Lena H Theissen; Alexander P Cole; Felix Preisser; Philipp C Mandel; Felix K H Chun Journal: World J Mens Health Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 5.400
Authors: Laure Michaud; Karim A Touijer; Audrey Mauguen; Michael J Zelefsky; Michael J Morris; Serge K Lyashschenko; Jeremy C Durack; John L Humm; Wolfgang A Weber; Heiko Schöder Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-12-20 Impact factor: 11.082