Tore Bach-Gansmo1, Cristina Nanni2, Peter T Nieh3, Lucia Zanoni2, Tronde Velde Bogsrud4, Heidi Sletten4, Katrine Andersen Korsan4, J Kieboom5, Funmilayo I Tade6, Oluwaseun Odewole6, Albert Chau7, Penelope Ward7, Mark M Goodman6, Stefano Fanti2, David M Schuster6, Frode Willoch8. 1. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. Electronic address: bat@uus.no. 2. Nuclear Medicine, Azienda ospedaliero-universitaria di Bologna, Policlinico Sant'Orsola-Malpighi, Bologna, Italy. 3. Department of Urology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 4. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine and Radiology, Aleris Healthcare, Oslo, Norway. 6. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 7. Blue Earth Diagnostics, Oxford, United Kingdom. 8. Department of Nuclear Medicine and Radiology, Aleris Healthcare, Oslo, Norway; Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Sensitive detection of cancer foci in men experiencing biochemical recurrence following initial treatment of prostate cancer is of great clinical significance with a possible impact on subsequent treatment choice. We describe a multisite experience of the efficacy and safety of the positron emission tomography/computerized tomography agent fluciclovine (18F) after biochemical recurrence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 596 patients underwent fluciclovine (18F) positron emission tomography/computerized tomography at 4 clinical sites. Detection rate determinations were stratified by the baseline prostate specific antigen value. Diagnostic performance was assessed against a histological reference standard in 143 scans. RESULTS: The subject level fluciclovine (18F) positron emission tomography/computer tomography detection rate was 67.7% (403 of 595 scans). Positive findings were detected in the prostate/bed and pelvic lymph node regions in 38.7% (232 of 599) and 32.6% of scans (194 of 596), respectively. Metastatic involvement outside the pelvis was detected in 26.2% of scans (155 of 591). The subject level detection rate in patients in the lowest quartile for baseline prostate specific antigen (0.79 ng/ml or less) was 41.4% (53 of 128). Of these patients 13 had involvement in the prostate/bed only, 16 had pelvic lymph node involvement without distant disease and 24 had distant metastases. The positive predictive value of fluciclovine (18F) positron emission tomography/computerized tomography scanning for all sampled lesions was 62.2%, and it was 92.3% and 71.8% for extraprostatic and prostate/bed involvement, respectively. Fluciclovine (18F) was well tolerated and the safety profile was not altered following repeat administration. CONCLUSIONS: Fluciclovine (18F) is well tolerated and able to detect local and distant prostate cancer recurrence across a wide range of prostate specific antigen values.
PURPOSE: Sensitive detection of cancer foci in men experiencing biochemical recurrence following initial treatment of prostate cancer is of great clinical significance with a possible impact on subsequent treatment choice. We describe a multisite experience of the efficacy and safety of the positron emission tomography/computerized tomography agent fluciclovine (18F) after biochemical recurrence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 596 patients underwent fluciclovine (18F) positron emission tomography/computerized tomography at 4 clinical sites. Detection rate determinations were stratified by the baseline prostate specific antigen value. Diagnostic performance was assessed against a histological reference standard in 143 scans. RESULTS: The subject level fluciclovine (18F) positron emission tomography/computer tomography detection rate was 67.7% (403 of 595 scans). Positive findings were detected in the prostate/bed and pelvic lymph node regions in 38.7% (232 of 599) and 32.6% of scans (194 of 596), respectively. Metastatic involvement outside the pelvis was detected in 26.2% of scans (155 of 591). The subject level detection rate in patients in the lowest quartile for baseline prostate specific antigen (0.79 ng/ml or less) was 41.4% (53 of 128). Of these patients 13 had involvement in the prostate/bed only, 16 had pelvic lymph node involvement without distant disease and 24 had distant metastases. The positive predictive value of fluciclovine (18F) positron emission tomography/computerized tomography scanning for all sampled lesions was 62.2%, and it was 92.3% and 71.8% for extraprostatic and prostate/bed involvement, respectively. Fluciclovine (18F) was well tolerated and the safety profile was not altered following repeat administration. CONCLUSIONS:Fluciclovine (18F) is well tolerated and able to detect local and distant prostate cancer recurrence across a wide range of prostate specific antigen values.
Authors: Ian Thompson; James Brantley Thrasher; Gunnar Aus; Arthur L Burnett; Edith D Canby-Hagino; Michael S Cookson; Anthony V D'Amico; Roger R Dmochowski; David T Eton; Jeffrey D Forman; S Larry Goldenberg; Javier Hernandez; Celestia S Higano; Stephen R Kraus; Judd W Moul; Catherine M Tangen Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Matthias Eiber; Tobias Maurer; Michael Souvatzoglou; Ambros J Beer; Alexander Ruffani; Bernhard Haller; Frank-Philipp Graner; Hubert Kübler; Uwe Haberkorn; Michael Eisenhut; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Jürgen E Gschwend; Markus Schwaiger Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Stephen A Boorjian; R Houston Thompson; Matthew K Tollefson; Laureano J Rangel; Eric J Bergstralh; Michael L Blute; R Jeffrey Karnes Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-02-22 Impact factor: 20.096
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: Nicholas David James; Melissa R Spears; Noel W Clarke; David P Dearnaley; Johann S De Bono; Joanna Gale; John Hetherington; Peter J Hoskin; Robert J Jones; Robert Laing; Jason F Lester; Duncan McLaren; Christopher C Parker; Mahesh K B Parmar; Alastair W S Ritchie; J Martin Russell; Räto T Strebel; George N Thalmann; Malcolm D Mason; Matthew R Sydes Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-10-06 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Sanjiv S Gambhir; Lalitha K Shankar; Eben Rosenthal; Jason M Warram; Munir Ghesani; Thomas A Hope; Paula M Jacobs; Gunilla B Jacobson; Terri Wilson; Barry A Siegel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-03-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Mohammad H Bagheri; Mark A Ahlman; Liza Lindenberg; Baris Turkbey; Jeffrey Lin; Ali Cahid Civelek; Ashkan A Malayeri; Piyush K Agarwal; Peter L Choyke; Les R Folio; Andrea B Apolo Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Mehrdad Alemozaffar; Akinyemi A Akintayo; Olayinka A Abiodun-Ojo; Dattatraya Patil; Faisal Saeed; Yijian Huang; Adeboye O Osunkoya; Mark M Goodman; Martin Sanda; David M Schuster Journal: J Urol Date: 2020-04-29 Impact factor: 7.450
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: Gerald L Andriole; Lale Kostakoglu; Albert Chau; Fenghai Duan; Umar Mahmood; David A Mankoff; David M Schuster; Barry A Siegel Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 7.450