Niranjan J Sathianathen1, Mohit Butaney2, Badrinath R Konety2. 1. Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, MMC 394, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA. nsathian@umn.edu. 2. Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, MMC 394, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Conventional imaging modalities have been poor in characterizing the true extent of disease in men with biochemical recurrence following primary treatment for prostate cancer. Functional imaging with positron emission tomography (PET) has shown promise of being a superior imaging modality. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to define the diagnostic accuracy of PET/CT using 11C-choline, 18F-FACBC, or 68Ga-PSMA in detecting recurrent prostate cancer. METHODS: We searched multiple databases in line with the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement to define the diagnostic accuracy of 11C-choline, 18F-FACBC, or 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT. Only studies secondarily staging participants with biochemical recurrence and those with an appropriate reference standard (pathology, further imaging, and/or clinical response) were eligible for analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies with 3202 participants met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 11C-choline, 18F-FACBC, and 68Ga-PSMA were the tracer investigated in 16, 5, and 1 studies, respectively. The summary sensitivity for each tracer was 80.9% (95% CI 70.4-88.3%), 79.7% (95% CI 51.9-93.4%), and 76.4% (95% CI 68.3-82.9%), respectively. The corresponding summary specificity was 84.1% (95% CI 70.2-92.2%), 61.9% (95% CI 41.1-79.0%), and 99.8% (95% CI 97.5-100%), respectively. Detection rates ranged between 58.6 and 82.8%. All included studies were judged to be at high risk of bias primarily due to study limitations pertaining to the reference standard. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of high-quality data to verify the accuracy of PET-based imaging using 11C-choline, 18F-FACBC, or 68Ga-PSMA. The early results are encouraging that these techniques are superior to conventional imaging modalities, which would allow salvage therapies to be optimized.
INTRODUCTION: Conventional imaging modalities have been poor in characterizing the true extent of disease in men with biochemical recurrence following primary treatment for prostate cancer. Functional imaging with positron emission tomography (PET) has shown promise of being a superior imaging modality. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to define the diagnostic accuracy of PET/CT using 11C-choline, 18F-FACBC, or 68Ga-PSMA in detecting recurrent prostate cancer. METHODS: We searched multiple databases in line with the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement to define the diagnostic accuracy of 11C-choline, 18F-FACBC, or 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT. Only studies secondarily staging participants with biochemical recurrence and those with an appropriate reference standard (pathology, further imaging, and/or clinical response) were eligible for analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies with 3202 participants met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 11C-choline, 18F-FACBC, and 68Ga-PSMA were the tracer investigated in 16, 5, and 1 studies, respectively. The summary sensitivity for each tracer was 80.9% (95% CI 70.4-88.3%), 79.7% (95% CI 51.9-93.4%), and 76.4% (95% CI 68.3-82.9%), respectively. The corresponding summary specificity was 84.1% (95% CI 70.2-92.2%), 61.9% (95% CI 41.1-79.0%), and 99.8% (95% CI 97.5-100%), respectively. Detection rates ranged between 58.6 and 82.8%. All included studies were judged to be at high risk of bias primarily due to study limitations pertaining to the reference standard. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of high-quality data to verify the accuracy of PET-based imaging using 11C-choline, 18F-FACBC, or 68Ga-PSMA. The early results are encouraging that these techniques are superior to conventional imaging modalities, which would allow salvage therapies to be optimized.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer staging; Positron emission tomography; Prostate cancer; Systematic review
Authors: Johannes B Reitsma; Afina S Glas; Anne W S Rutjes; Rob J P M Scholten; Patrick M Bossuyt; Aeilko H Zwinderman Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Mack Roach; Gerald Hanks; Howard Thames; Paul Schellhammer; William U Shipley; Gerald H Sokol; Howard Sandler Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: David M Schuster; John R Votaw; Peter T Nieh; Weiping Yu; Jonathon A Nye; Viraj Master; F DuBois Bowman; Muta M Issa; Mark M Goodman Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: M Picchio; C Messa; C Landoni; L Gianolli; S Sironi; M Brioschi; M Matarrese; D V Matei; F De Cobelli; A Del Maschio; F Rocco; P Rigatti; F Fazio Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Christopher J Kane; Christopher L Amling; Peter A S Johnstone; Nali Pak; Raymond S Lance; J Brantley Thrasher; John P Foley; Robert H Riffenburgh; Judd W Moul Journal: Urology Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Louisa G Gordon; Thomas M Elliott; Andre Joshi; Elizabeth D Williams; Ian Vela Journal: Clin Exp Metastasis Date: 2020-02-17 Impact factor: 5.150
Authors: E M Kwan; I A Thangasamy; J Teh; O Alghazo; N J Sathianathen; N Lawrentschuk; A A Azad Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-01-02 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Kelsey L Pomykala; Johannes Czernin; Tristan R Grogan; Wesley R Armstrong; John Williams; Jeremie Calais Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-09-20 Impact factor: 11.082