Tiziano Graziani1, Francesco Ceci1, Paolo Castellucci2,3, Giulia Polverari1, Giacomo Maria Lima1, Filippo Lodi1, Alessio Giuseppe Morganti4, Andrea Ardizzoni5, Riccardo Schiavina6, Stefano Fanti1. 1. Service of Nuclear Medicine, S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 2. Service of Nuclear Medicine, S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. paolo.castellucci@aosp.bo.it. 3. UO Medicina Nucleare, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Policlinico S.Orsola-Malpighi, PAD. 30, Via Massarenti, 9, 40138, Bologna, Italy. paolo.castellucci@aosp.bo.it. 4. Department of Radiotherapy, S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 5. Department of Oncology, S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 6. Department of Urology, S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate (11)C-choline PET/CT as a diagnostic tool for restaging prostate cancer (PCa), in a large, homogeneous and clinically relevant population of patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) of PCa after primary therapy. The secondary aim was to assess the best timing for performing (11)C-choline PET/CT during BCR. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 9,632 (11)C-choline PET/CT scans performed in our institution for restaging PCa from January 2007 to June 2015. The inclusion criteria were: (1) proven PCa radically treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) or with primary external beam radiotherapy (EBRT); (2) PSA serum values available; (3) proven BCR (PSA >0.2 ng/mL after RP or PSA >2 ng/mL above the nadir after primary EBRT with rising PSA levels). Finally, 3,203 patients with recurrent PCa matching all the inclusion criteria were retrospectively enrolled and 4,426 scans were analysed. RESULTS: Overall, 52.8 % of the (11)C-choline PET/CT scans (2,337/4,426) and 54.8 % of the patients (1,755/3,203) were positive. In 29.4 % of the scans, at least one distant finding was observed. The mean and median PSA values were, respectively, 4.9 and 2.1 ng/mL at the time of the scan (range 0.2 - 50 ng/mL). In our series, 995 scans were performed in patients with PSA levels between 1 and 2 ng/mL. In this subpopulation the positivity rate in the 995 scans was 44.7 %, with an incidence of distant findings of 19.2 % and an incidence of oligometastatic disease (one to three lesions) of 37.7 %. The absolute PSA value at the time of the scan and ongoing androgen deprivation therapy were associated with an increased probability of a positive (11)C-choline PET/CT scan (p < 0.0001). In the ROC analysis, a PSA value of 1.16 ng/mL was the optimal cut-off value. In patients with a PSA value <1.16 ng/mL, 26.8 % of 1,426 (11)C-choline PET/CT scans were positive, with oligometastatic disease in 84.7 % of positive scans. CONCLUSION: In a large cohort of patients, the feasibility of (11)C-choline PET/CT for detecting the sites of metastatic disease in PCa patients with BCR was confirmed. The PSA level was the main predictor of a positive scan with 1.16 ng/mL as the optimal cut-off value. In the majority of positive scans oligometastatic disease, potentially treatable with salvage therapies, was observed.
PURPOSE: To evaluate (11)C-choline PET/CT as a diagnostic tool for restaging prostate cancer (PCa), in a large, homogeneous and clinically relevant population of patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) of PCa after primary therapy. The secondary aim was to assess the best timing for performing (11)C-choline PET/CT during BCR. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 9,632 (11)C-choline PET/CT scans performed in our institution for restaging PCa from January 2007 to June 2015. The inclusion criteria were: (1) proven PCa radically treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) or with primary external beam radiotherapy (EBRT); (2) PSA serum values available; (3) proven BCR (PSA >0.2 ng/mL after RP or PSA >2 ng/mL above the nadir after primary EBRT with rising PSA levels). Finally, 3,203 patients with recurrent PCa matching all the inclusion criteria were retrospectively enrolled and 4,426 scans were analysed. RESULTS: Overall, 52.8 % of the (11)C-choline PET/CT scans (2,337/4,426) and 54.8 % of the patients (1,755/3,203) were positive. In 29.4 % of the scans, at least one distant finding was observed. The mean and median PSA values were, respectively, 4.9 and 2.1 ng/mL at the time of the scan (range 0.2 - 50 ng/mL). In our series, 995 scans were performed in patients with PSA levels between 1 and 2 ng/mL. In this subpopulation the positivity rate in the 995 scans was 44.7 %, with an incidence of distant findings of 19.2 % and an incidence of oligometastatic disease (one to three lesions) of 37.7 %. The absolute PSA value at the time of the scan and ongoing androgen deprivation therapy were associated with an increased probability of a positive (11)C-choline PET/CT scan (p < 0.0001). In the ROC analysis, a PSA value of 1.16 ng/mL was the optimal cut-off value. In patients with a PSA value <1.16 ng/mL, 26.8 % of 1,426 (11)C-choline PET/CT scans were positive, with oligometastatic disease in 84.7 % of positive scans. CONCLUSION: In a large cohort of patients, the feasibility of (11)C-choline PET/CT for detecting the sites of metastatic disease in PCa patients with BCR was confirmed. The PSA level was the main predictor of a positive scan with 1.16 ng/mL as the optimal cut-off value. In the majority of positive scans oligometastatic disease, potentially treatable with salvage therapies, was observed.
Authors: Stephen A Boorjian; James A Eastham; Markus Graefen; Bertrand Guillonneau; R Jeffrey Karnes; Judd W Moul; Edward M Schaeffer; Christian Stief; Kevin C Zorn Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Francesco Ceci; Christian Uprimny; Bernhard Nilica; Llanos Geraldo; Dorota Kendler; Alexander Kroiss; Jasmin Bektic; Wolfgang Horninger; Peter Lukas; Clemens Decristoforo; Paolo Castellucci; Stefano Fanti; Irene J Virgolini Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-05-15 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Andrew J Stephenson; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan; Thomas M Pisansky; Kevin M Slawin; Eric A Klein; Mitchell S Anscher; Jeff M Michalski; Howard M Sandler; Daniel W Lin; Jeffrey D Forman; Michael J Zelefsky; Larry L Kestin; Claus G Roehrborn; Charles N Catton; Theodore L DeWeese; Stanley L Liauw; Richard K Valicenti; Deborah A Kuban; Alan Pollack Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-05-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Piet Ost; Alberto Bossi; Karel Decaestecker; Gert De Meerleer; Gianluca Giannarini; R Jeffrey Karnes; Mack Roach; Alberto Briganti Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-09-17 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Sanoj Punnen; Matthew R Cooperberg; Anthony V D'Amico; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Judd W Moul; Howard I Scher; Thorsten Schlomm; Stephen J Freedland Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-05-16 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: A Afshar-Oromieh; A Malcher; M Eder; M Eisenhut; H G Linhart; B A Hadaschik; T Holland-Letz; F L Giesel; C Kratochwil; S Haufe; U Haberkorn; C M Zechmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-11-24 Impact factor: 9.236
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: William P Parker; Brian J Davis; Sean S Park; Kenneth R Olivier; Richard Choo; Mark A Nathan; Val J Lowe; Timothy J Welch; Jaden D Evans; William S Harmsen; Harras B Zaid; Ilya Sobol; Daniel M Moreira; Rimki Haloi; Matthew K Tollefson; Matthew T Gettman; Stephen A Boorjian; Lance A Mynderse; R Jeffrey Karnes; Eugene D Kwon Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-09-03 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Francesco Ceci; Ken Herrmann; Boris Hadaschik; Paolo Castellucci; Stefano Fanti Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-05-25 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: William P Parker; Jaden D Evans; Bradley J Stish; Sean S Park; Kenneth Olivier; Richard Choo; Mark A Nathan; Brian T Welch; R Jeffrey Karnes; Lance A Mynderse; Thomas M Pisansky; Eugene D Kwon; Val J Lowe; Brian J Davis Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-11-17 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Andrei Fodor; Andrea Lancia; Francesco Ceci; Maria Picchio; Morten Hoyer; Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa; Piet Ost; Paolo Castellucci; Elena Incerti; Nadia Di Muzio; Gianluca Ingrosso Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-05-11 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Giampiero Giovacchini; Andrea Ciarmiello; Elisabetta Giovannini; Andrei Fodor; Cesare Cozzarini; Paola Mapelli; Elena Incerti; Nadia Di Muzio; Luigi Gianolli; Maria Picchio Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-02-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Esther Mena; Peter C Black; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Michael Gorin; Mohamad Allaf; Peter Choyke Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-07-15 Impact factor: 4.226