Sarah M Schwarzenböck1,2, Matthias Eiber3, Günther Kundt4, Margitta Retz5, Monique Sakretz6, Jens Kurth6, Uwe Treiber5, Roman Nawroth5, Ernst J Rummeny7, Jürgen E Gschwend5, Markus Schwaiger3, Mark Thalgott5, Bernd J Krause3,6. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. sarah.schwarzenboeck@med.uni-rostock.de. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Rostock University Medical Centre, Gertrudenplatz 1, 18057, Rostock, Germany. sarah.schwarzenboeck@med.uni-rostock.de. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. 4. Department of Biostatistics and Informatics, Rostock University Medical Centre, Ernst-Heydemann-Str. 8, 18057, Rostock, Germany. 5. Department of Urology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. 6. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Rostock University Medical Centre, Gertrudenplatz 1, 18057, Rostock, Germany. 7. Institute of Radiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the value of [11C] Choline PET/CT in monitoring early and late response to a standardized first-line docetaxel chemotherapy in castration refractory prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients. METHODS: Thirty-two patients were referred for [11C] Choline PET/CT before the start of docetaxel chemotherapy, after one and ten chemotherapy cycles (or - in case of discontinuation - after the last administered cycle) for therapy response assessment. [11C] Choline uptake (SUVmax, SUVmean), CT derived Houndsfield units (HUmax, HUmean), and volume of bone, lung, and nodal metastases and local recurrence were measured semi-automatically at these timepoints. Change in SUVmax, SUVmean, HUmax, HUmean, and volume was assessed between PET 2 and 1 (early response assessment, ERA) and PET 3 and 1 (late response assessment, LRA) on a patient and lesion basis. Results of PET/CT were compared to clinically used RECIST 1.1 and clinical criteria based therapy response assessment including PSA for defining progressive disease (PD) and non-progressive disease (nPD), respectively. Relationships between changes of SUVmax and SUVmean (early and late) and changes of PSAearly and PSAlate were evaluated. Prognostic value of initial SUVmax and SUVmean was assessed. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS. RESULTS: In the patient-based ERA and LRA there were no statistically significant differences in change of choline uptake, HU, and volume between PD and nPD applying RECIST or clinical response criteria. In the lesion-based ERA, decrease in choline uptake of bone metastases was even higher in PD (applying RECIST criteria), whereas in LRA the decrease was higher in nPD (applying clinical criteria). There were only significant correlations between change in choline uptake and PSA in ERA in PD, in LRA no significant correlations were discovered. Initial SUVmax and SUVmean were statistically significantly higher in nPD (applying clinical criteria). CONCLUSION: There is no significant correlation between change in choline uptake in [11C] Choline PET/CT and clinically routinely used objective response assessment during the early and late course of docetaxel chemotherapy. Therefore, [11C] Choline PET/CT seems to be of limited use in therapy response assessment in standardized first-line chemotherapy in mCRPC patients.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the value of [11C] Choline PET/CT in monitoring early and late response to a standardized first-line docetaxel chemotherapy in castration refractory prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients. METHODS: Thirty-two patients were referred for [11C] Choline PET/CT before the start of docetaxel chemotherapy, after one and ten chemotherapy cycles (or - in case of discontinuation - after the last administered cycle) for therapy response assessment. [11C] Choline uptake (SUVmax, SUVmean), CT derived Houndsfield units (HUmax, HUmean), and volume of bone, lung, and nodal metastases and local recurrence were measured semi-automatically at these timepoints. Change in SUVmax, SUVmean, HUmax, HUmean, and volume was assessed between PET 2 and 1 (early response assessment, ERA) and PET 3 and 1 (late response assessment, LRA) on a patient and lesion basis. Results of PET/CT were compared to clinically used RECIST 1.1 and clinical criteria based therapy response assessment including PSA for defining progressive disease (PD) and non-progressive disease (nPD), respectively. Relationships between changes of SUVmax and SUVmean (early and late) and changes of PSAearly and PSAlate were evaluated. Prognostic value of initial SUVmax and SUVmean was assessed. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS. RESULTS: In the patient-based ERA and LRA there were no statistically significant differences in change of choline uptake, HU, and volume between PD and nPD applying RECIST or clinical response criteria. In the lesion-based ERA, decrease in choline uptake of bone metastases was even higher in PD (applying RECIST criteria), whereas in LRA the decrease was higher in nPD (applying clinical criteria). There were only significant correlations between change in choline uptake and PSA in ERA in PD, in LRA no significant correlations were discovered. Initial SUVmax and SUVmean were statistically significantly higher in nPD (applying clinical criteria). CONCLUSION: There is no significant correlation between change in choline uptake in [11C] Choline PET/CT and clinically routinely used objective response assessment during the early and late course of docetaxel chemotherapy. Therefore, [11C] Choline PET/CT seems to be of limited use in therapy response assessment in standardized first-line chemotherapy in mCRPC patients.
Authors: M Thalgott; M M Heck; M Eiber; M Souvatzoglou; G Hatzichristodoulou; V Kehl; B J Krause; B Rack; M Retz; J E Gschwend; U Andergassen; R Nawroth Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2015-02-24 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: H Young; R Baum; U Cremerius; K Herholz; O Hoekstra; A A Lammertsma; J Pruim; P Price Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Joseph D Khoury; Dorothy M Adcock; Fanny Chan; James T Symanowski; Stefan Tiefenbacher; Oscar Goodman; Lazara Paz; Yupo Ma; David C Ward; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Louis M Fink Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 2.493
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: C Pezaro; A Omlin; D Lorente; D Nava Rodrigues; R Ferraldeschi; D Bianchini; D Mukherji; R Riisnaes; A Altavilla; M Crespo; N Tunariu; J de Bono; G Attard Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-11-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Anna Katharina Seitz; Isabel Rauscher; Bernhard Haller; Markus Krönke; Sophia Luther; Matthias M Heck; Thomas Horn; Jürgen E Gschwend; Markus Schwaiger; Matthias Eiber; Tobias Maurer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Christian Schmidkonz; Michael Cordes; Daniela Schmidt; Tobias Bäuerle; Theresa Ida Goetz; Michael Beck; Olaf Prante; Alexander Cavallaro; Michael Uder; Bernd Wullich; Peter Goebell; Torsten Kuwert; Philipp Ritt Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-05-03 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: 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