Matthias Eiber1,2, Isabel Rauscher3, Michael Souvatzoglou1, Tobias Maurer4, Markus Schwaiger1, Konstantin Holzapfel5, Ambros J Beer1,6. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technische Universität München, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. 2. Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, USA. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technische Universität München, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. isabel.rauscher@tum.de. 4. Department of Urology, Technische Universität München, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. 5. Department of Radiology, Technische Universität München, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. 6. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ulm University, Albert-Einstein-Allee 23, 89081, Ulm, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Whole-body integrated 11C-choline PET/MR might provide advantages compared to 11C-choline PET/CT for restaging of prostate cancer (PC) due to the high soft-tissue contrast and the use of multiparametric MRI, especially for detection of local recurrence and bone metastases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-four patients with recurrent PC underwent a single-injection/dual-imaging protocol with contrast-enhanced PET/CT followed by fully diagnostic PET/MR. Imaging datasets were read separately by two reader teams (team 1 and 2) assessing the presence of local recurrence, lymph node and bone metastases in predefined regions using a five-point scale. Detection rates were calculated. The diagnostic performance of PET/CT vs. PET/MR was compared using ROC analysis. Inter-observer and inter-modality variability, radiation exposure, and mean imaging time were evaluated. Clinical follow-up, imaging, and/or histopathology served as standard of reference (SOR). RESULTS: Seventy-five patients qualified for the final image analysis. A total of 188 regions were regarded as positive: local recurrence in 37 patients, 87 regions with lymph node metastases, and 64 regions with bone metastases. Mean detection rate between both readers teams for PET/MR was 84.7% compared to 77.3% for PET/CT (p > 0.05). Local recurrence was identified significantly more often in PET/MR compared to PET/CT by team 1. Lymph node and bone metastases were identified significantly more often in PET/CT compared to PET/MR by both teams. However, this difference was not present in the subgroup of patients with PSA values ≤2 ng/ml. Inter-modality and inter-observer agreement (K > 0.6) was moderate to substantial for nearly all categories. Mean reduction of radiation exposure for PET/MR compared to PET/CT was 79.7% (range, 72.6-86.2%). Mean imaging time for PET/CT was substantially lower (18.4 ± 0.7 min) compared to PET/MR (50.4 ± 7.9 min). CONCLUSIONS: 11C-choline PET/MR is a robust imaging modality for restaging biochemical recurrent PC and interpretations between different readers are consistent. It provides a higher diagnostic value for detecting local recurrence compared to PET/CT with the advantage of substantial dose reduction. Drawbacks of PET/MR are a substantially longer imaging time and a slight inferiority in detecting bone and lymph node metastases in patients with PSA values >2 ng/ml. Thus, we suggest the use of 11C-choline PET/MR especially for patients with low (≤2 ng/ml) PSA values, whereas PET/CT is preferable in the subgroup with higher PSA values.
PURPOSE: Whole-body integrated 11C-choline PET/MR might provide advantages compared to 11C-choline PET/CT for restaging of prostate cancer (PC) due to the high soft-tissue contrast and the use of multiparametric MRI, especially for detection of local recurrence and bone metastases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-four patients with recurrent PC underwent a single-injection/dual-imaging protocol with contrast-enhanced PET/CT followed by fully diagnostic PET/MR. Imaging datasets were read separately by two reader teams (team 1 and 2) assessing the presence of local recurrence, lymph node and bone metastases in predefined regions using a five-point scale. Detection rates were calculated. The diagnostic performance of PET/CT vs. PET/MR was compared using ROC analysis. Inter-observer and inter-modality variability, radiation exposure, and mean imaging time were evaluated. Clinical follow-up, imaging, and/or histopathology served as standard of reference (SOR). RESULTS: Seventy-five patients qualified for the final image analysis. A total of 188 regions were regarded as positive: local recurrence in 37 patients, 87 regions with lymph node metastases, and 64 regions with bone metastases. Mean detection rate between both readers teams for PET/MR was 84.7% compared to 77.3% for PET/CT (p > 0.05). Local recurrence was identified significantly more often in PET/MR compared to PET/CT by team 1. Lymph node and bone metastases were identified significantly more often in PET/CT compared to PET/MR by both teams. However, this difference was not present in the subgroup of patients with PSA values ≤2 ng/ml. Inter-modality and inter-observer agreement (K > 0.6) was moderate to substantial for nearly all categories. Mean reduction of radiation exposure for PET/MR compared to PET/CT was 79.7% (range, 72.6-86.2%). Mean imaging time for PET/CT was substantially lower (18.4 ± 0.7 min) compared to PET/MR (50.4 ± 7.9 min). CONCLUSIONS:11C-choline PET/MR is a robust imaging modality for restaging biochemical recurrent PC and interpretations between different readers are consistent. It provides a higher diagnostic value for detecting local recurrence compared to PET/CT with the advantage of substantial dose reduction. Drawbacks of PET/MR are a substantially longer imaging time and a slight inferiority in detecting bone and lymph node metastases in patients with PSA values >2 ng/ml. Thus, we suggest the use of 11C-choline PET/MR especially for patients with low (≤2 ng/ml) PSA values, whereas PET/CT is preferable in the subgroup with higher PSA values.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biochemical recurrence; Hybrid imaging; Prostate cancer
Authors: Axel Wetter; Christine Lipponer; Felix Nensa; Karsten Beiderwellen; Tobias Olbricht; Herbert Rübben; Andreas Bockisch; Thomas Schlosser; Till A Heusner; Thomas C Lauenstein Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Wolfgang Peter Fendler; Martin Barrio; Claudio Spick; Martin Allen-Auerbach; Valentina Ambrosini; Matthias Benz; Christina Bluemel; Ravinder Kaur Grewal; Constantin Lapa; Matthias Miederer; Guillaume Nicolas; Tibor Schuster; Johannes Czernin; Ken Herrmann Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-08-18 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Gaspar Delso; Sebastian Fürst; Björn Jakoby; Ralf Ladebeck; Carl Ganter; Stephan G Nekolla; Markus Schwaiger; Sibylle I Ziegler Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Berrend G Muller; Joanna H Shih; Sandeep Sankineni; Jamie Marko; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Arvin Koruthu George; Jean J M C H de la Rosette; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-06-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: J Ferlay; E Steliarova-Foucher; J Lortet-Tieulent; S Rosso; J W W Coebergh; H Comber; D Forman; F Bray Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: B J Krause; M Souvatzoglou; M Tuncel; K Herrmann; A K Buck; C Praus; T Schuster; H Geinitz; U Treiber; M Schwaiger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-09-22 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Axel Wetter; Felix Nensa; Marcus Schenck; Philipp Heusch; Thorsten Pöppel; Andreas Bockisch; Michael Forsting; Thomas W Schlosser; Thomas C Lauenstein; James Nagarajah Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-07-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Verane Achard; Giorgio Lamanna; Antoine Denis; Thomas De Perrot; Ismini Charis Mainta; Osman Ratib; Christophe Iselin; Raymond Miralbell; Valentina Garibotto; Thomas Zilli Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2019-06-12 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: Francesco Paparo; Alice Peirano; João Matos; Lorenzo Bacigalupo; Umberto Rossi; Ilaria Mussetto; Gianluca Bottoni; Martina Ugolini; Carlo Introini; Filippo Grillo Ruggieri; Gian Andrea Rollandi; Arnoldo Piccardo Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2020-11
Authors: Abdullah A Alharbi; Fahad M Alshehri; Abdulrahman A Albatly; Bert-Ram Sah; Christoph Schmid; Gerhard F Huber; Martin W Huellner Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Marius E Mayerhoefer; Helmut Prosch; Lucian Beer; Dietmar Tamandl; Thomas Beyer; Christoph Hoeller; Dominik Berzaczy; Markus Raderer; Matthias Preusser; Maximilian Hochmair; Barbara Kiesewetter; Christian Scheuba; Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah; Georgios Karanikas; Julia Kesselbacher; Gerald Prager; Karin Dieckmann; Stephan Polterauer; Michael Weber; Ivo Rausch; Bernhard Brauner; Harald Eidherr; Wolfgang Wadsak; Alexander R Haug Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-08-13 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Constantin Lapa; Ursula Nestle; Nathalie L Albert; Christian Baues; Ambros Beer; Andreas Buck; Volker Budach; Rebecca Bütof; Stephanie E Combs; Thorsten Derlin; Matthias Eiber; Wolfgang P Fendler; Christian Furth; Cihan Gani; Eleni Gkika; Anca-L Grosu; Christoph Henkenberens; Harun Ilhan; Steffen Löck; Simone Marnitz-Schulze; Matthias Miederer; Michael Mix; Nils H Nicolay; Maximilian Niyazi; Christoph Pöttgen; Claus M Rödel; Imke Schatka; Sarah M Schwarzenboeck; Andrei S Todica; Wolfgang Weber; Simone Wegen; Thomas Wiegel; Constantinos Zamboglou; Daniel Zips; Klaus Zöphel; Sebastian Zschaeck; Daniela Thorwarth; Esther G C Troost Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: B Grubmüller; P Baltzer; D D'Andrea; S Korn; A R Haug; M Hacker; K H Grubmüller; G M Goldner; W Wadsak; S Pfaff; J Babich; C Seitz; H Fajkovic; M Susani; P Mazal; G Kramer; S F Shariat; Markus Hartenbach Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-10-26 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Christopher C Khoo; Saiful Miah; Martin J Connor; Joseph Tam; Mathias Winkler; Hashim U Ahmed; Taimur T Shah Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2020-06