PURPOSE: To investigate the disease detection rate, diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement of fluciclovine (18F) PET-CT and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMR) in recurrent prostate cancer. METHODS: Twenty-four patients with biochemical failure after non-prostatectomy definitive therapy, 16/24 of whom had undergone brachytherapy, underwent fluciclovine PET-CT and mpMR with interpretation by expert readers blinded to patient history, PSA and other imaging results. Reference standard was established via a multidisciplinary truth panel utilizing histology and clinical follow-up (22.9 ± 10.5 months) and emphasizing biochemical control. The truth panel was blinded to investigative imaging results. Diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement (kappa) for the prostate and extraprostatic regions were calculated for each of 2 readers for PET-CT (P1 and P2) and 2 different readers for mpMR (M1 and M2). RESULTS: On a whole body basis, the detection rate for fluciclovine PET-CT was 94.7% (both readers), while it ranged from 31.6-36.8% for mpMR. Kappa for fluciclovine PET-CT was 0.90 in the prostate and 1.0 in the extraprostatic regions. For mpMR, kappa was 0.25 and 0.74, respectively. In the prostate, 22/24 patients met the reference standard with 13 malignant and 9 benign results. Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) were 100.0%, 11.1% and 61.9%, respectively for both PET readers. For mpMR readers, values ranged from 15.4-38.5% for sensitivity, 55.6-77.8% for specificity and 50.0-55.6% for PPV. For extraprostatic disease determination, 18/24 patients met the reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity and PPV were 87.5%, 90.0% and 87.5%, respectively, for fluciclovine PET-CT, while for mpMR, sensitivity ranged from 50 to 75%, specificity 70-80% and PPV 57-75%. CONCLUSION: The disease detection rate for fluciclovine PET-CT in non-prostatectomy patients with biochemical failure was 94.7% versus 31.6-36.8% for mpMR. For extraprostatic disease detection, fluciclovine PET-CT had overall better diagnostic performance than mpMR. For the treated prostate, fluciclovine PET-CT had high sensitivity though low specificity for disease detection, while mpMR had higher specificity, though low sensitivity. Interobserver agreement was also higher with fluciclovine PET-CT compared with mpMR.
PURPOSE: To investigate the disease detection rate, diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement of fluciclovine (18F) PET-CT and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMR) in recurrent prostate cancer. METHODS: Twenty-four patients with biochemical failure after non-prostatectomy definitive therapy, 16/24 of whom had undergone brachytherapy, underwent fluciclovine PET-CT and mpMR with interpretation by expert readers blinded to patient history, PSA and other imaging results. Reference standard was established via a multidisciplinary truth panel utilizing histology and clinical follow-up (22.9 ± 10.5 months) and emphasizing biochemical control. The truth panel was blinded to investigative imaging results. Diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement (kappa) for the prostate and extraprostatic regions were calculated for each of 2 readers for PET-CT (P1 and P2) and 2 different readers for mpMR (M1 and M2). RESULTS: On a whole body basis, the detection rate for fluciclovine PET-CT was 94.7% (both readers), while it ranged from 31.6-36.8% for mpMR. Kappa for fluciclovine PET-CT was 0.90 in the prostate and 1.0 in the extraprostatic regions. For mpMR, kappa was 0.25 and 0.74, respectively. In the prostate, 22/24 patients met the reference standard with 13 malignant and 9 benign results. Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) were 100.0%, 11.1% and 61.9%, respectively for both PET readers. For mpMR readers, values ranged from 15.4-38.5% for sensitivity, 55.6-77.8% for specificity and 50.0-55.6% for PPV. For extraprostatic disease determination, 18/24 patients met the reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity and PPV were 87.5%, 90.0% and 87.5%, respectively, for fluciclovine PET-CT, while for mpMR, sensitivity ranged from 50 to 75%, specificity 70-80% and PPV 57-75%. CONCLUSION: The disease detection rate for fluciclovine PET-CT in non-prostatectomy patients with biochemical failure was 94.7% versus 31.6-36.8% for mpMR. For extraprostatic disease detection, fluciclovine PET-CT had overall better diagnostic performance than mpMR. For the treated prostate, fluciclovine PET-CT had high sensitivity though low specificity for disease detection, while mpMR had higher specificity, though low sensitivity. Interobserver agreement was also higher with fluciclovine PET-CT compared with mpMR.
Authors: Jonathan McConathy; Weiping Yu; Nachwa Jarkas; Wonewoo Seo; David M Schuster; Mark M Goodman Journal: Med Res Rev Date: 2011-07-26 Impact factor: 12.944
Authors: Oguz Akin; David H Gultekin; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Junting Zheng; Chaya Moskowitz; Xin Pei; Dahlia Sperling; Lawrence H Schwartz; Hedvig Hricak; Michael J Zelefsky Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-05-01 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Oluwaseun A Odewole; Funmilayo I Tade; Peter T Nieh; Bital Savir-Baruch; Ashesh B Jani; Viraj A Master; Peter J Rossi; Raghuveer K Halkar; Adeboye O Osunkoya; Oladunni Akin-Akintayo; Chao Zhang; Zhengjia Chen; Mark M Goodman; David M Schuster Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-04-18 Impact factor: 9.236
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: 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: Baowei Fei; Olayinka A Abiodun-Ojo; Akinyemi A Akintayo; Oladunni Akin-Akintayo; Funmilayo Tade; Peter T Nieh; Viraj A Master; Mehrdad Alemozaffar; Adeboye O Osunkoya; Mark M Goodman; David M Schuster Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-07-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Olayinka A Abiodun-Ojo; Akinyemi A Akintayo; Oladunni O Akin-Akintayo; Funmilayo I Tade; Peter T Nieh; Viraj A Master; Mehrdad Alemozaffar; Adeboye O Osunkoya; Mark M Goodman; Baowei Fei; David M Schuster Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-04-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ahmed Ebada Salem; Gabriel C Fine; Matthew F Covington; Bhasker R Koppula; Richard H Wiggins; John M Hoffman; Kathryn A Morton Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-06-18 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Ashesh B Jani; Eduard Schreibmann; Subir Goyal; Raghuveer Halkar; Bruce Hershatter; Peter J Rossi; Joseph W Shelton; Pretesh R Patel; Karen M Xu; Mark Goodman; Viraj A Master; Shreyas S Joshi; Omer Kucuk; Bradley C Carthon; Mehmet A Bilen; Olayinka A Abiodun-Ojo; Akinyemi A Akintayo; Vishal R Dhere; David M Schuster Journal: Lancet Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Andrew M McDonald; Samuel J Galgano; Jonathan E McConathy; Eddy S Yang; Michael C Dobelbower; Rojymon Jacob; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Jeffrey W Nix; Richard A Popple; John B Fiveash Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-06-19