L Michaud1, K A Touijer2. 1. Department of Surgery and Molecular Imaging and Therapy Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, États-Unis. 2. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, États-Unis; Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, États-Unis. Electronic address: touijerk@mskcc.org.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer is the most frequent cancer in men in France and it is a public health issue. This cancer is heterogenous. There is a clinical need of an accurate non-invasive imaging method to improve diagnosis, guide the choice of therapy and evaluate its efficacy. We undertook to critically review the different molecular imaging probes, currently used or in clinical trial. METHOD: A systematic review of the literature was performed in Pubmed/Medline database by searching for articles in French or English published on PET tracer in prostate cancer in clinical application. RESULTS: Several PET tracers are under investigation because of the low performance of the FDG in prostate cancer. In France, only two new PET tracers have the marketing authorization: the NaF and choline, but these tracers have several limitations. The NaF analyses only bone metastasis. The choline has changed the recurrence of prostate cancer but is not effective for recurrence with low PSA, furthermore its sensitivity is low for the detection of lymph nodes metastasis in initial disease. Several tracers in trial including the PSMA offer encouraging prospects in initial staging and for recurrences. CONCLUSION: An accurate knowledge in molecular biology allowed to develop the metabolic imagery. Many new tracers are under evaluation in prostate cancer. The indication of each of them needs to be established.
INTRODUCTION:Prostate cancer is the most frequent cancer in men in France and it is a public health issue. This cancer is heterogenous. There is a clinical need of an accurate non-invasive imaging method to improve diagnosis, guide the choice of therapy and evaluate its efficacy. We undertook to critically review the different molecular imaging probes, currently used or in clinical trial. METHOD: A systematic review of the literature was performed in Pubmed/Medline database by searching for articles in French or English published on PET tracer in prostate cancer in clinical application. RESULTS: Several PET tracers are under investigation because of the low performance of the FDG in prostate cancer. In France, only two new PET tracers have the marketing authorization: the NaF and choline, but these tracers have several limitations. The NaF analyses only bone metastasis. The choline has changed the recurrence of prostate cancer but is not effective for recurrence with low PSA, furthermore its sensitivity is low for the detection of lymph nodes metastasis in initial disease. Several tracers in trial including the PSMA offer encouraging prospects in initial staging and for recurrences. CONCLUSION: An accurate knowledge in molecular biology allowed to develop the metabolic imagery. Many new tracers are under evaluation in prostate cancer. The indication of each of them needs to be established.
Authors: David M Schuster; John R Votaw; Peter T Nieh; Weiping Yu; Jonathon A Nye; Viraj Master; F DuBois Bowman; Muta M Issa; Mark M Goodman Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Mohsen Beheshti; Reza Vali; Peter Waldenberger; Friedrich Fitz; Michael Nader; Wolfgang Loidl; Gabriele Broinger; Franz Stoiber; Ignac Foglman; Werner Langsteger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-05-09 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Tobias Maurer; Gregor Weirich; Margret Schottelius; Martina Weineisen; Benjamin Frisch; Asli Okur; Hubert Kübler; Mark Thalgott; Nassir Navab; Markus Schwaiger; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Jürgen E Gschwend; Matthias Eiber Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-05-06 Impact factor: 20.096