Spencer C Behr1, Rahul Aggarwal2, Youngho Seo1, Carina M Aparici1, Emily Chang2, Kenneth T Gao1, Dora H Tao1, Eric J Small2, Michael J Evans3. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, 185 Berry Street, Lobby 6, Suite 350, San Francisco, CA, 94107, USA. 2. Department of Medicine, University of California, 505 Parnassus Avenue, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA. 3. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, 185 Berry Street, Lobby 6, Suite 350, San Francisco, CA, 94107, USA. michael.evans@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The management of advanced or recurrent prostate cancer is limited in part by the lack of effective imaging agents. Metabolic changes in prostate cancer have previously been exploited for imaging, culminating in the recent US FDA approval of [11C]choline for the detection of subclinical recurrent disease after definitive local therapy. Despite this milestone, production of [11C]choline requires an on-site cyclotron, limiting the scope of medical centers at which this scan can be offered. In this pilot study, we tested whether prostate cancer could be imaged with positron emission tomography (PET) using [68Ga]citrate, a radiotracer that targets iron metabolism but is produced without a cyclotron. PROCEDURES: Eight patients with castrate-resistant prostate cancer were enrolled in this single-center feasibility study. All patients had evidence of metastatic disease by standard of care imaging [X-ray computed tomography (CT), bone scan, or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)] prior to PET with [68Ga]citrate. Patients were intravenously injected with increasing doses of [68Ga]citrate (136.9 to a maximum of 259 MBq). Uptake time was steadily increased from 1 h to approximately 3.5 h for the final 4 patients, and all patients were imaged with a PET/MRI. Qualitative and semi-quantitative (maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax)) assessment of the metastatic lesions was performed and compared to the standard of care imaging. RESULTS: At 1- and 2-h imaging times post injection, there were no detectable lesions with [68Ga]citrate PET. At 3- to 4-h uptake time, there were a total of 71 [68Ga]citrate-positive lesions (67 osseous, 1 liver, and 3 lymph node). Of these, 65 lesions were visible on the standard of care imaging (CT and/or bone scan). One PET-avid osseous vertebral body metastasis was not apparent on either CT or bone scan. Twenty-five lesions were not PET-avid but seen on CT and bone scan (17 bone, 6 lymph node, 1 pleural, and 1 liver). The average of the maximum SUVs for bone or soft tissue metastases for patients treated at higher doses and uptake time was statistically higher than the corresponding parameter in normal liver, muscle, and bone. Visually obvious blood pool activity was observed even 3-4 h post injection, suggesting that further optimization of the [68Ga]citrate imaging protocol is required to maximize signal-to-background ratios. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary results support that PET with [68Ga]citrate may be a novel tool for imaging prostate cancer. Future studies are needed to determine the optimal imaging protocol, the clinical significance of [68Ga]citrate uptake, and its role in therapeutic decisions.
PURPOSE: The management of advanced or recurrent prostate cancer is limited in part by the lack of effective imaging agents. Metabolic changes in prostate cancer have previously been exploited for imaging, culminating in the recent US FDA approval of [11C]choline for the detection of subclinical recurrent disease after definitive local therapy. Despite this milestone, production of [11C]choline requires an on-site cyclotron, limiting the scope of medical centers at which this scan can be offered. In this pilot study, we tested whether prostate cancer could be imaged with positron emission tomography (PET) using [68Ga]citrate, a radiotracer that targets iron metabolism but is produced without a cyclotron. PROCEDURES: Eight patients with castrate-resistant prostate cancer were enrolled in this single-center feasibility study. All patients had evidence of metastatic disease by standard of care imaging [X-ray computed tomography (CT), bone scan, or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)] prior to PET with [68Ga]citrate. Patients were intravenously injected with increasing doses of [68Ga]citrate (136.9 to a maximum of 259 MBq). Uptake time was steadily increased from 1 h to approximately 3.5 h for the final 4 patients, and all patients were imaged with a PET/MRI. Qualitative and semi-quantitative (maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax)) assessment of the metastatic lesions was performed and compared to the standard of care imaging. RESULTS: At 1- and 2-h imaging times post injection, there were no detectable lesions with [68Ga]citrate PET. At 3- to 4-h uptake time, there were a total of 71 [68Ga]citrate-positive lesions (67 osseous, 1 liver, and 3 lymph node). Of these, 65 lesions were visible on the standard of care imaging (CT and/or bone scan). One PET-avid osseous vertebral body metastasis was not apparent on either CT or bone scan. Twenty-five lesions were not PET-avid but seen on CT and bone scan (17 bone, 6 lymph node, 1 pleural, and 1 liver). The average of the maximum SUVs for bone or soft tissue metastases for patients treated at higher doses and uptake time was statistically higher than the corresponding parameter in normal liver, muscle, and bone. Visually obvious blood pool activity was observed even 3-4 h post injection, suggesting that further optimization of the [68Ga]citrate imaging protocol is required to maximize signal-to-background ratios. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary results support that PET with [68Ga]citrate may be a novel tool for imaging prostate cancer. Future studies are needed to determine the optimal imaging protocol, the clinical significance of [68Ga]citrate uptake, and its role in therapeutic decisions.
Authors: Rodolfo Nuñez; Homer A Macapinlac; Henry W D Yeung; Tim Akhurst; Shangde Cai; Iman Osman; Mithat Gonen; Elyn Riedel; Howard I Scher; Steven M Larson Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Neeta Pandit-Taskar; Joseph A O'Donoghue; Jeremy C Durack; Serge K Lyashchenko; Sarah M Cheal; Volkan Beylergil; Robert A Lefkowitz; Jorge A Carrasquillo; Danny F Martinez; Alex Mak Fung; Stephen B Solomon; Mithat Gönen; Glenn Heller; Massimo Loda; David M Nanus; Scott T Tagawa; Jarett L Feldman; Joseph R Osborne; Jason S Lewis; Victor E Reuter; Wolfgang A Weber; Neil H Bander; Howard I Scher; Steven M Larson; Michael J Morris Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-07-14 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Bradley J Beattie; Peter M Smith-Jones; Yuliya S Jhanwar; Heiko Schöder; C Ross Schmidtlein; Michael J Morris; Pat Zanzonico; Olivia Squire; Gustavo S P Meirelles; Ron Finn; Mohammad Namavari; Shangde Cai; Howard I Scher; Steven M Larson; John L Humm Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-01-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Howard I Scher; Susan Halabi; Ian Tannock; Michael Morris; Cora N Sternberg; Michael A Carducci; Mario A Eisenberger; Celestia Higano; Glenn J Bubley; Robert Dreicer; Daniel Petrylak; Philip Kantoff; Ethan Basch; William Kevin Kelly; William D Figg; Eric J Small; Tomasz M Beer; George Wilding; Alison Martin; Maha Hussain Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Dan Robinson; Eliezer M Van Allen; Yi-Mi Wu; Nikolaus Schultz; Robert J Lonigro; Juan-Miguel Mosquera; Bruce Montgomery; Mary-Ellen Taplin; Colin C Pritchard; Gerhardt Attard; Himisha Beltran; Wassim Abida; Robert K Bradley; Jake Vinson; Xuhong Cao; Pankaj Vats; Lakshmi P Kunju; Maha Hussain; Felix Y Feng; Scott A Tomlins; Kathleen A Cooney; David C Smith; Christine Brennan; Javed Siddiqui; Rohit Mehra; Yu Chen; Dana E Rathkopf; Michael J Morris; Stephen B Solomon; Jeremy C Durack; Victor E Reuter; Anuradha Gopalan; Jianjiong Gao; Massimo Loda; Rosina T Lis; Michaela Bowden; Stephen P Balk; Glenn Gaviola; Carrie Sougnez; Manaswi Gupta; Evan Y Yu; Elahe A Mostaghel; Heather H Cheng; Hyojeong Mulcahy; Lawrence D True; Stephen R Plymate; Heidi Dvinge; Roberta Ferraldeschi; Penny Flohr; Susana Miranda; Zafeiris Zafeiriou; Nina Tunariu; Joaquin Mateo; Raquel Perez-Lopez; Francesca Demichelis; Brian D Robinson; Marc Schiffman; David M Nanus; Scott T Tagawa; Alexandros Sigaras; Kenneth W Eng; Olivier Elemento; Andrea Sboner; Elisabeth I Heath; Howard I Scher; Kenneth J Pienta; Philip Kantoff; Johann S de Bono; Mark A Rubin; Peter S Nelson; Levi A Garraway; Charles L Sawyers; Arul M Chinnaiyan Journal: Cell Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Frederik L Giesel; H Fiedler; M Stefanova; F Sterzing; M Rius; K Kopka; J H Moltz; A Afshar-Oromieh; P L Choyke; U Haberkorn; C Kratochwil Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-07-11 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Charles Truillet; John T Cunningham; Matthew F L Parker; Loc T Huynh; Crystal S Conn; Davide Ruggero; Jason S Lewis; Michael J Evans Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-12-22 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Rahul Aggarwal; Spencer C Behr; Pamela L Paris; Charles Truillet; Matthew F L Parker; Loc T Huynh; Junnian Wei; Byron Hann; Jack Youngren; Jiaoti Huang; Gayatri Premasekharan; Nimna Ranatunga; Emily Chang; Kenneth T Gao; Charles J Ryan; Eric J Small; Michael J Evans Journal: Mol Cancer Res Date: 2017-06-07 Impact factor: 5.852
Authors: Youngho Seo; Mohammad Mehdi Khalighi; Kristen A Wangerin; Timothy W Deller; Yung-Hua Wang; Salma Jivan; Maureen P Kohi; Rahul Aggarwal; Robert R Flavell; Spencer C Behr; Michael J Evans Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Spencer C Behr; Javier E Villanueva-Meyer; Yan Li; Yung-Hua Wang; Junnian Wei; Anna Moroz; Julia Kl Lee; Jeffrey C Hsiao; Kenneth T Gao; Wendy Ma; Soonmee Cha; David M Wilson; Youngho Seo; Sarah J Nelson; Susan M Chang; Michael J Evans Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2018-11-02
Authors: Honglin Jiang; Ryan K Muir; Ryan L Gonciarz; Adam B Olshen; Iwei Yeh; Byron C Hann; Ning Zhao; Yung-Hua Wang; Spencer C Behr; James E Korkola; Michael J Evans; Eric A Collisson; Adam R Renslo Journal: J Exp Med Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 17.579
Authors: Carina Mari Aparici; Spencer C Behr; Youngho Seo; R Kate Kelley; Carlos Corvera; Kenneth T Gao; Rahul Aggarwal; Michael J Evans Journal: Mol Imaging Date: 2017 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 4.488
Authors: Cinzia Imberti; Pierre Adumeau; Julia E Blower; Fahad Al Salemee; Julia Baguña Torres; Jason S Lewis; Brian M Zeglis; Samantha Y A Terry; Philip J Blower Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2020-02-22 Impact factor: 5.923