Oluwaseun A Odewole1, Funmilayo I Tade1, Peter T Nieh2, Bital Savir-Baruch3, Ashesh B Jani4, Viraj A Master2, Peter J Rossi4, Raghuveer K Halkar1, Adeboye O Osunkoya2,5, Oladunni Akin-Akintayo1, Chao Zhang6, Zhengjia Chen6, Mark M Goodman1, David M Schuster7,8. 1. Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 2. Urology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 3. Radiology, Loyola University Medical Centre, Maywood, IL, USA. 4. Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 5. Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 6. Biostatistics & Bioinformatics, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 7. Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. dschust@emory.edu. 8. Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University Hospital, 1364 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA. dschust@emory.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of the synthetic amino acid analogue PET radiotracer anti-3-[(18)F]FACBC (fluciclovine) with that of CT in the detection of recurrent prostate carcinoma. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of 53 bone scan-negative patients with suspected recurrent prostate carcinoma who underwent fluciclovine PET/CT and routine clinical CT within 90 days of each other. The correlation between imaging findings and histology and clinical follow-up was evaluated. Positivity rates and diagnostic performance were calculated for fluciclovine PET/CT and CT. RESULTS: Of 53 fluciclovine PET/CT and 53 CT examinations, 41 (77.4 %) and 10 (18.9 %), respectively, had positive findings for recurrent disease. Positivity rates were higher with fluciclovine PET/CT than with CT at all prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, PSA doubling times and original Gleason scores. In the prostate/bed, fluciclovine PET/CT was true-positive in 31 and CT was true-positive in 4 of 51 patients who met the reference standard. In extraprostatic regions, fluciclovine PET/CT was true-positive in 12 and CT was true-positive in 3 of 41 patients who met the reference standard. Of the 43 index lesions used to prove positivity, 42 (97.7 %) had histological proof. In 51 patients with sufficient follow-up to calculate diagnostic performance in the prostate/bed, fluciclovine PET/CT demonstrated a sensitivity of 88.6 %, a specificity of 56.3 %, an accuracy of 78.4 %, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 81.6 %, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 69.2 %; the respective values for CT were 11.4 %, 87.5 %, 35.3 %, 66.7 % and 31.1 %. In 41 patients with sufficient follow-up to calculate diagnostic performance in extraprostatic regions, fluciclovine PET/CT demonstrated a sensitivity of 46.2 %, a specificity of 100 %, an accuracy of 65.9 %, a PPV of 100 %, and an NPV of 51.7 %; the respective values for CT were 11.5 %, 100 %, 43.9 %, 100 % and 39.5 %. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of fluciclovine PET/CT in recurrent prostate cancer is superior to that of CT and fluciclovine PET/CT provides better delineation of prostatic from extraprostatic recurrence.
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of the synthetic amino acid analogue PET radiotracer anti-3-[(18)F]FACBC (fluciclovine) with that of CT in the detection of recurrent prostate carcinoma. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of 53 bone scan-negative patients with suspected recurrent prostate carcinoma who underwent fluciclovine PET/CT and routine clinical CT within 90 days of each other. The correlation between imaging findings and histology and clinical follow-up was evaluated. Positivity rates and diagnostic performance were calculated for fluciclovine PET/CT and CT. RESULTS: Of 53 fluciclovine PET/CT and 53 CT examinations, 41 (77.4 %) and 10 (18.9 %), respectively, had positive findings for recurrent disease. Positivity rates were higher with fluciclovine PET/CT than with CT at all prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, PSA doubling times and original Gleason scores. In the prostate/bed, fluciclovine PET/CT was true-positive in 31 and CT was true-positive in 4 of 51 patients who met the reference standard. In extraprostatic regions, fluciclovine PET/CT was true-positive in 12 and CT was true-positive in 3 of 41 patients who met the reference standard. Of the 43 index lesions used to prove positivity, 42 (97.7 %) had histological proof. In 51 patients with sufficient follow-up to calculate diagnostic performance in the prostate/bed, fluciclovine PET/CT demonstrated a sensitivity of 88.6 %, a specificity of 56.3 %, an accuracy of 78.4 %, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 81.6 %, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 69.2 %; the respective values for CT were 11.4 %, 87.5 %, 35.3 %, 66.7 % and 31.1 %. In 41 patients with sufficient follow-up to calculate diagnostic performance in extraprostatic regions, fluciclovine PET/CT demonstrated a sensitivity of 46.2 %, a specificity of 100 %, an accuracy of 65.9 %, a PPV of 100 %, and an NPV of 51.7 %; the respective values for CT were 11.5 %, 100 %, 43.9 %, 100 % and 39.5 %. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of fluciclovine PET/CT in recurrent prostate cancer is superior to that of CT and fluciclovine PET/CT provides better delineation of prostatic from extraprostatic recurrence.
Entities:
Keywords:
CT; Diagnostic performance; FACBC; Fluciclovine; PET; Prostate cancer
Authors: David M Schuster; Bital Savir-Baruch; Peter T Nieh; Viraj A Master; Raghuveer K Halkar; Peter J Rossi; Melinda M Lewis; Jonathon A Nye; Weiping Yu; F DuBois Bowman; Mark M Goodman Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-04-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nobuyuki Oyama; Tom R Miller; Farrokh Dehdashti; Barry A Siegel; Keith C Fischer; Jeff M Michalski; Adam S Kibel; Gerald L Andriole; Joel Picus; Michael J Welch Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jonathan McConathy; Weiping Yu; Nachwa Jarkas; Wonewoo Seo; David M Schuster; Mark M Goodman Journal: Med Res Rev Date: 2011-07-26 Impact factor: 12.944
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Esther Mena; Joanna Shih; Peter A Pinto; Maria J Merino; Maria L Lindenberg; Marcelino Bernardo; Yolanda L McKinney; Stephen Adler; Rikard Owenius; Peter L Choyke; Karen A Kurdziel Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-11-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Onisuru T Okotie; William J Aronson; Jeff A Wieder; Yen Liao; Fred Dorey; Jean B DeKERNION; Stephen J Freedland Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Marcin Czarniecki; Joanna H Shih; Stephanie A Harmon; Piyush K Agarwal; Andrea B Apolo; Deborah E Citrin; James L Gulley; Mukesh Harisinghani; Ravi A Madan; Adam R Metwalli; Edmond Paquette; Peter A Pinto; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Lindsay S Rowe; Bradford J Wood; Paula M Jacobs; Liza Lindenberg; William Dahut; Peter L Choyke Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2019-10-15 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Oladunni O Akin-Akintayo; Ashesh B Jani; Oluwaseun Odewole; Funmilayo I Tade; Peter T Nieh; Viraj A Master; Leah M Bellamy; Raghuveer K Halkar; Chao Zhang; Zhengjia Chen; Mark M Goodman; David M Schuster Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Oladunni Akin-Akintayo; Funmilayo Tade; Pardeep Mittal; Courtney Moreno; Peter T Nieh; Peter Rossi; Dattatraya Patil; Raghuveer Halkar; Baowei Fei; Viraj Master; Ashesh B Jani; Hiroumi Kitajima; Adeboye O Osunkoya; Claudia Ormenisan-Gherasim; Mark M Goodman; David M Schuster Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2018-02-24 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: F I Tade; W G Wiles; G Lu; B Bilir; O Akin-Akintayo; J S Lee; D Patil; W Yu; C Ormenisan Gherasim; B Fei; C S Moreno; A O Osunkoya; E J Teoh; S Oka; H Okudaira; M M Goodman; D M Schuster Journal: Amino Acids Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 3.520
Authors: Ajalaya Teyateeti; Achiraya Teyateeti; Gregory C Ravizzini; Guofan Xu; Chad Tang; Shi-Ming Tu; Homer A Macapinlac; Yang Lu Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-04-15