Xin Li1,2, Steven P Rowe1, Jeffrey P Leal1, Michael A Gorin3, Mohamad E Allaf3, Ashley E Ross3, Kenneth J Pienta3,4, Martin A Lodge1, Martin G Pomper5. 1. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. Department of Radiology, Shandong Provincial Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan City, Shandong Province, China. 3. James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; and. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 5. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland mpomper@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
18F-DCFPyL is a small-molecule inhibitor of the prostate-specific membrane antigen that has shown promise for evaluation of primary and metastatic prostate cancer using PET. Measuring the variability in normal-organ uptake of 18F-DCFPyL is necessary to understand its biodistribution, aid image interpretation, judge the reliability of scan quantification, and provide a basis for therapeutic monitoring. Methods: Sixty-five consecutive 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT scans from 64 patients with a history of prostate cancer were analyzed. Volumes of interest were defined for the lacrimal glands, major salivary glands, liver, spleen, and both kidneys. The mean SUV normalized to body mass or to lean body mass (SUL) was calculated for each volume of interest. The average SUV across all scans, the SD, and the coefficient of variation (COV) for each organ were calculated. The same parameters were also derived for a 3-cm sphere drawn in the center of the right lobe of the liver. Results: The average SUVmean for all selected organs measured was 6.6 ± 1.8 for the right lacrimal gland, 6.4 ± 1.8 for the left lacrimal gland, 9.1 ± 2.0 for the right parotid gland, 9.0 ± 2.1 for the left parotid gland, 9.6 ± 2.3 for the right submandibular gland, 9.4 ± 2.2 for the left submandibular gland, 5.0 ± 0.7 for the whole liver, 5.1 ± 0.7 for a 3-cm sphere in the liver, 4.0 ± 1.5 for the spleen, 20.1 ± 4.6 for the right kidney, and 19.4 ± 4.5 for the left kidney. SULmean was lower overall, although demonstrating similar trends. The COV of SUVmean and SULmean was lower in the liver (13.8% and 14.5%, respectively) than in any other organ and was less than the comparable COV for 18F-FDG PET. The COV of SUVmean and SULmean in the 3-cm sphere in the liver was also low and similar to the variability in the whole liver (14.2% and 14.7%, respectively). Conclusion: 18F-DCFPyL uptake in normal liver demonstrates less variability than in other 18F-DCFPyL-avid organs, and its variability is less than the reported variability of 18F-FDG in liver. Variability was slightly less for SUVmean than for SULmean, suggesting that SUVmean may be the preferable parameter for quantification of images obtained with 18F-DCFPyL.
18F-DCFPyL is a small-molecule inhibitor of the prostate-specific membrane antigen that has shown promise for evaluation of primary and metastatic prostate cancer using PET. Measuring the variability in normal-organ uptake of 18F-DCFPyL is necessary to understand its biodistribution, aid image interpretation, judge the reliability of scan quantification, and provide a basis for therapeutic monitoring. Methods: Sixty-five consecutive 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT scans from 64 patients with a history of prostate cancer were analyzed. Volumes of interest were defined for the lacrimal glands, major salivary glands, liver, spleen, and both kidneys. The mean SUV normalized to body mass or to lean body mass (SUL) was calculated for each volume of interest. The average SUV across all scans, the SD, and the coefficient of variation (COV) for each organ were calculated. The same parameters were also derived for a 3-cm sphere drawn in the center of the right lobe of the liver. Results: The average SUVmean for all selected organs measured was 6.6 ± 1.8 for the right lacrimal gland, 6.4 ± 1.8 for the left lacrimal gland, 9.1 ± 2.0 for the right parotid gland, 9.0 ± 2.1 for the left parotid gland, 9.6 ± 2.3 for the right submandibular gland, 9.4 ± 2.2 for the left submandibular gland, 5.0 ± 0.7 for the whole liver, 5.1 ± 0.7 for a 3-cm sphere in the liver, 4.0 ± 1.5 for the spleen, 20.1 ± 4.6 for the right kidney, and 19.4 ± 4.5 for the left kidney. SULmean was lower overall, although demonstrating similar trends. The COV of SUVmean and SULmean was lower in the liver (13.8% and 14.5%, respectively) than in any other organ and was less than the comparable COV for 18F-FDG PET. The COV of SUVmean and SULmean in the 3-cm sphere in the liver was also low and similar to the variability in the whole liver (14.2% and 14.7%, respectively). Conclusion: 18F-DCFPyL uptake in normal liver demonstrates less variability than in other 18F-DCFPyL-avid organs, and its variability is less than the reported variability of 18F-FDG in liver. Variability was slightly less for SUVmean than for SULmean, suggesting that SUVmean may be the preferable parameter for quantification of images obtained with 18F-DCFPyL.
Authors: Ying Chen; Mrudula Pullambhatla; Catherine A Foss; Youngjoo Byun; Sridhar Nimmagadda; Srinivasan Senthamizhchelvan; George Sgouros; Ronnie C Mease; Martin G Pomper Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-10-31 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Steven P Rowe; Kenneth L Gage; Sheila F Faraj; Katarzyna J Macura; Toby C Cornish; Nilda Gonzalez-Roibon; Gunes Guner; Enrico Munari; Alan W Partin; Christian P Pavlovich; Misop Han; H Ballentine Carter; Trinity J Bivalacqua; Amanda Blackford; Daniel Holt; Robert F Dannals; George J Netto; Martin A Lodge; Ronnie C Mease; Martin G Pomper; Steve Y Cho Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Steven P Rowe; Esther Vicente; Nadège Anizan; Hao Wang; Jeffrey P Leal; Martin A Lodge; Eric C Frey; Richard L Wahl Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-05-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Zsolt Szabo; Esther Mena; Steven P Rowe; Donika Plyku; Rosa Nidal; Mario A Eisenberger; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Hong Fan; Robert F Dannals; Ying Chen; Ronnie C Mease; Melin Vranesic; Akrita Bhatnagar; George Sgouros; Steve Y Cho; Martin G Pomper Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Steven P Rowe; Michael A Gorin; Hans J Hammers; M Som Javadi; Hazem Hawasli; Zsolt Szabo; Steve Y Cho; Martin G Pomper; Mohamad E Allaf Journal: Ann Nucl Med Date: 2015-08-19 Impact factor: 2.668
Authors: Georg Kuhnert; Ronald Boellaard; Sergej Sterzer; Deniz Kahraman; Matthias Scheffler; Jürgen Wolf; Markus Dietlein; Alexander Drzezga; Carsten Kobe Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Steve Y Cho; Kenneth L Gage; Ronnie C Mease; Srinivasan Senthamizhchelvan; Daniel P Holt; Akimosa Jeffrey-Kwanisai; Christopher J Endres; Robert F Dannals; George Sgouros; Martin Lodge; Mario A Eisenberger; Ronald Rodriguez; Michael A Carducci; Camilo Rojas; Barbara S Slusher; Alan P Kozikowski; Martin G Pomper Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: S M Batallés; R L Villavicencio; A Quaranta; L Burgos; S Trezzo; R Staffieri; S M Pezzotto Journal: Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol Date: 2012-03-30 Impact factor: 1.359
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: Stefanie Avril; Raymond F Muzic; Donna Plecha; Bryan J Traughber; Shaveta Vinayak; Norbert Avril Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Rudolf A Werner; Heribert Hänscheid; Jeffrey P Leal; Mehrbod S Javadi; Takahiro Higuchi; Martin A Lodge; Andreas K Buck; Martin G Pomper; Constantin Lapa; Steven P Rowe Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Karine Sahakyan; Xin Li; Martin A Lodge; Rudolf A Werner; Ralph A Bundschuh; Lena Bundschuh; Harshad R Kulkarni; Christiane Schuchardt; Richard P Baum; Kenneth J Pienta; Martin G Pomper; Ashley E Ross; Michael A Gorin; Steven P Rowe Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Sebastian Schmuck; Stefan Nordlohne; Christoph-A von Klot; Christoph Henkenberens; Jan M Sohns; Hans Christiansen; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Tobias L Ross; Frank M Bengel; Thorsten Derlin Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Bernard H E Jansen; Gem M Kramer; Matthijs C F Cysouw; Maqsood M Yaqub; Bart de Keizer; Jules Lavalaye; Jan Booij; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Michael J Morris; André N Vis; Reindert J A van Moorselaar; Otto S Hoekstra; Ronald Boellaard; Daniela E Oprea-Lager Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-01-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Alexander Heinzel; Dima Boghos; Felix M Mottaghy; Florian Gaertner; Markus Essler; Dirk von Mallek; Hojjat Ahmadzadehfar Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-01-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Rudolf A Werner; Harun Ilhan; Sebastian Lehner; László Papp; Norbert Zsótér; Imke Schatka; Dirk O Muegge; Mehrbod S Javadi; Takahiro Higuchi; Andreas K Buck; Peter Bartenstein; Frank Bengel; Markus Essler; Constantin Lapa; Ralph A Bundschuh Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Boris D Zlatopolskiy; Heike Endepols; Philipp Krapf; Mehrab Guliyev; Elizaveta A Urusova; Raphael Richarz; Melanie Hohberg; Markus Dietlein; Alexander Drzezga; Bernd Neumaier Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-11-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Rudolf A Werner; Sara Sheikhbahaei; Krystyna M Jones; Mehrbod S Javadi; Lilja B Solnes; Ashley E Ross; Mohamad E Allaf; Kenneth J Pienta; Constantin Lapa; Andreas K Buck; Takahiro Higuchi; Martin G Pomper; Michael A Gorin; Steven P Rowe Journal: Ann Nucl Med Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 2.668