A J Conde-Moreno1, G Herrando-Parreño2, R Muelas-Soria2, J Ferrer-Rebolleda3, R Broseta-Torres4, M P Cozar-Santiago3, F García-Piñón5, C Ferrer-Albiach2. 1. Radiation Oncology Department, Consorcio Hospitalario Provincial de Castellón, Castellón, Spain. antoniojconde@gmail.com. 2. Radiation Oncology Department, Consorcio Hospitalario Provincial de Castellón, Castellón, Spain. 3. Nuclear Medicine Department, Eresa Hospital General de Valencia, Valencia, Spain. 4. MRI Department, Eresa-Hospital General de Castellón, Valencia, Spain. 5. Biostatistics Department, Fundación Hospital Provincial de Castellón, Consorcio Hospitalario Provincial de Castellón, Castellón, Spain.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (WB-DW-MRI) in detecting metastases by comparing the results with those from choline-positron emission tomography-computed tomography (choline-PET/CT) in patients with biochemical relapse after primary treatment, and no metastases in bone scintigraphy, CT and/or pelvic MRI, or metastatic/oligometastatic prostate cancer (PCa). Patients with this disease profile who could benefit from treatment with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) were selected and their responses to these techniques were rated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, controlled, unicentric study, involving 46 consecutive patients from our centre who presented biochemical relapse after adjuvant, salvage or radical treatment with external beam radiotherapy, or brachytherapy. After initial tests (bone scintigraphy, CT, pelvic MRI), 35 patients with oligometastases or without them were selected. 11 patients with multiple metastases were excluded from the study. WB-DW-MRI and choline-PET/CT was then performed on each patient within 1 week. The results were interpreted by specialists in nuclear medicine and MRI. If they were candidates for treatment with ablative SBRT (SABR), they were then evaluated every three months with both tests. RESULTS: Choline-PET/CT detected lesions in 16 patients that were not observable using WB-DW-MRI. The results were consistent in seven patients and in three cases, a lesion was observed using WB-DW-MRI that was not detected with choline-PET/CT. The Kappa value obtained was 0.133 (p = 0.089); the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of WB-DW-MRI were estimated at 44.93, 64.29, 86.11, and 19.15%, respectively. For choline-PET/CT patients, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 97.10, 58.33, 93.06, and 77.78%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Choline-PET/CT has a high global sensitivity while WB-DW-MRI has a high specificity, and so they are complementary techniques. Future studies with more enrolled patients and a longer follow-up period will be required to confirm these data. The initial data show that the best technique for evaluating response after SBRT is choline-PET/CT. Trial registration number NCT02858128.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (WB-DW-MRI) in detecting metastases by comparing the results with those from choline-positron emission tomography-computed tomography (choline-PET/CT) in patients with biochemical relapse after primary treatment, and no metastases in bone scintigraphy, CT and/or pelvic MRI, or metastatic/oligometastatic prostate cancer (PCa). Patients with this disease profile who could benefit from treatment with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) were selected and their responses to these techniques were rated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, controlled, unicentric study, involving 46 consecutive patients from our centre who presented biochemical relapse after adjuvant, salvage or radical treatment with external beam radiotherapy, or brachytherapy. After initial tests (bone scintigraphy, CT, pelvic MRI), 35 patients with oligometastases or without them were selected. 11 patients with multiple metastases were excluded from the study. WB-DW-MRI and choline-PET/CT was then performed on each patient within 1 week. The results were interpreted by specialists in nuclear medicine and MRI. If they were candidates for treatment with ablative SBRT (SABR), they were then evaluated every three months with both tests. RESULTS:Choline-PET/CT detected lesions in 16 patients that were not observable using WB-DW-MRI. The results were consistent in seven patients and in three cases, a lesion was observed using WB-DW-MRI that was not detected with choline-PET/CT. The Kappa value obtained was 0.133 (p = 0.089); the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of WB-DW-MRI were estimated at 44.93, 64.29, 86.11, and 19.15%, respectively. For choline-PET/CT patients, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 97.10, 58.33, 93.06, and 77.78%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Choline-PET/CT has a high global sensitivity while WB-DW-MRI has a high specificity, and so they are complementary techniques. Future studies with more enrolled patients and a longer follow-up period will be required to confirm these data. The initial data show that the best technique for evaluating response after SBRT is choline-PET/CT. Trial registration number NCT02858128.
Authors: Charles G Fisher; Christian P DiPaola; Timothy C Ryken; Mark H Bilsky; Christopher I Shaffrey; Sigurd H Berven; James S Harrop; Michael G Fehlings; Stefano Boriani; Dean Chou; Meic H Schmidt; David W Polly; Roberto Biagini; Shane Burch; Mark B Dekutoski; Aruna Ganju; Peter C Gerszten; Ziya L Gokaslan; Michael W Groff; Norbert J Liebsch; Ehud Mendel; Scott H Okuno; Shreyaskumar Patel; Laurence D Rhines; Peter S Rose; Daniel M Sciubba; Narayan Sundaresan; Katsuro Tomita; Peter P Varga; Luiz R Vialle; Frank D Vrionis; Yoshiya Yamada; Daryl R Fourney Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2010-10-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Tom Budiharto; Steven Joniau; Evelyne Lerut; Laura Van den Bergh; Felix Mottaghy; Christophe M Deroose; Raymond Oyen; Filip Ameye; Kris Bogaerts; Karin Haustermans; Hendrik Van Poppel Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-01-18 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Mohsen Beheshti; Reza Vali; Peter Waldenberger; Friedrich Fitz; Michael Nader; Josef Hammer; Wolfgang Loidl; Christian Pirich; Ignac Fogelman; Werner Langsteger Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2009 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Arnoldo Piccardo; Francesco Paparo; Riccardo Piccazzo; Riccardo Picazzo; Mehrdad Naseri; Paolo Ricci; Andrea Marziano; Lorenzo Bacigalupo; Ennio Biscaldi; Gian Andrea Rollandi; Filippo Grillo-Ruggieri; Mohsen Farsad Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2014-04-30 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Felipe Couñago; Gemma Sancho; Violeta Catalá; Diana Hernández; Manuel Recio; Sara Montemuiño; Jhonathan Alejandro Hernández; Antonio Maldonado; Elia Del Cerro Journal: World J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-08-10
Authors: Anthony Turpin; Edwina Girard; Clio Baillet; David Pasquier; Jonathan Olivier; Arnauld Villers; Philippe Puech; Nicolas Penel Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2020-01-31 Impact factor: 6.244