Gerald L Andriole1,2, Lale Kostakoglu3, Albert Chau4, Fenghai Duan5, Umar Mahmood6, David A Mankoff7, David M Schuster8, Barry A Siegel9,2. 1. Division of Urologic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 2. Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 3. Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York, New York. 4. Blue Earth Diagnostics, Oxford, United Kingdom. 5. Department of Biostatistics and Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island. 6. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 8. Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 9. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The prospective, multicenter LOCATE (F Fluciclovine [FACBC] PET/CT in Patients with Rising PSA after Initial Prostate Cancer Treatment) trial assessed the impact of positron emission tomography/computerized tomography with F-fluciclovine on treatment plans in patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after primary therapy with curative intent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men who had undergone curative intent treatment of histologically confirmed prostate cancer but who were suspected to have recurrence based on rising prostate specific antigen levels were enrolled prospectively. Each man had negative or equivocal findings on standard of care imaging. F-fluciclovine positron emission tomography/computerized tomography was performed according to standardized protocols. Treating physicians completed a questionnaire regarding the patient treatment plan before and after scanning, recording changes to the treatment modality (eg salvage radiotherapy to systemic androgen deprivation therapy) as major and changes in a modality (eg modified radiotherapy fields) as other. RESULTS: Between June 2016 and May 2017, 213 evaluable patients with a median age of 67 years and median prostate specific antigen 1.00 ng/ml were enrolled in study. F-fluciclovine avid lesions were detected in 122 of the 213 patients (57%). Overall 126 of the 213 patients (59%) had a change in management after the scan, which were major in 98 of 126 (78%) and in 88 (70%) were informed by positive positron emission tomography/computerized tomography findings. The most frequent major changes were from salvage or noncurative systemic therapy to watchful waiting (32 of 126 cases or 25%), from noncurative systemic therapy to salvage therapy (30 of 126 or 24%) and from salvage therapy to noncurative systemic therapy (11 of 126 or 9%). CONCLUSIONS: F-fluciclovine positron emission tomography/computerized tomography detected 1 or more recurrence sites in the majority of men with biochemical recurrence, frequently resulting in major changes to management plans. Future studies will be planned to determine whether a management change leads to improved outcomes.
PURPOSE: The prospective, multicenter LOCATE (F Fluciclovine [FACBC] PET/CT in Patients with Rising PSA after Initial Prostate Cancer Treatment) trial assessed the impact of positron emission tomography/computerized tomography with F-fluciclovine on treatment plans in patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after primary therapy with curative intent. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Men who had undergone curative intent treatment of histologically confirmed prostate cancer but who were suspected to have recurrence based on rising prostate specific antigen levels were enrolled prospectively. Each man had negative or equivocal findings on standard of care imaging. F-fluciclovine positron emission tomography/computerized tomography was performed according to standardized protocols. Treating physicians completed a questionnaire regarding the patient treatment plan before and after scanning, recording changes to the treatment modality (eg salvage radiotherapy to systemic androgen deprivation therapy) as major and changes in a modality (eg modified radiotherapy fields) as other. RESULTS: Between June 2016 and May 2017, 213 evaluable patients with a median age of 67 years and median prostate specific antigen 1.00 ng/ml were enrolled in study. F-fluciclovine avid lesions were detected in 122 of the 213 patients (57%). Overall 126 of the 213 patients (59%) had a change in management after the scan, which were major in 98 of 126 (78%) and in 88 (70%) were informed by positive positron emission tomography/computerized tomography findings. The most frequent major changes were from salvage or noncurative systemic therapy to watchful waiting (32 of 126 cases or 25%), from noncurative systemic therapy to salvage therapy (30 of 126 or 24%) and from salvage therapy to noncurative systemic therapy (11 of 126 or 9%). CONCLUSIONS:F-fluciclovine positron emission tomography/computerized tomography detected 1 or more recurrence sites in the majority of men with biochemical recurrence, frequently resulting in major changes to management plans. Future studies will be planned to determine whether a management change leads to improved outcomes.
Authors: Oladunni O Akin-Akintayo; Ashesh B Jani; Oluwaseun Odewole; Funmilayo I Tade; Peter T Nieh; Viraj A Master; Leah M Bellamy; Raghuveer K Halkar; Chao Zhang; Zhengjia Chen; Mark M Goodman; David M Schuster Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Thomas A Hope; Rahul Aggarwal; Bryant Chee; Dora Tao; Kirsten L Greene; Matthew R Cooperberg; Felix Feng; Albert Chang; Charles J Ryan; Eric J Small; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Philip Cornford; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Erik Briers; Maria De Santis; Tobias Gross; Ann M Henry; Steven Joniau; Thomas B Lam; Malcolm D Mason; Henk G van der Poel; Theo H van der Kwast; Olivier Rouvière; Thomas Wiegel; Nicolas Mottet Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Matthew P Miller; Lale Kostakoglu; Daniel Pryma; Jian Qin Yu; Albert Chau; Eric Perlman; Bonnie Clarke; Donald Rosen; Penelope Ward Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-04-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Henry K Tsai; Anthony V D'Amico; Natalia Sadetsky; Ming-Hui Chen; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-10-09 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Sanjiv S Gambhir; Lalitha K Shankar; Eben Rosenthal; Jason M Warram; Munir Ghesani; Thomas A Hope; Paula M Jacobs; Gunilla B Jacobson; Terri Wilson; Barry A Siegel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-03-08 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Ajalaya Teyateeti; Achiraya Teyateeti; Gregory C Ravizzini; Guofan Xu; Chad Tang; Shi-Ming Tu; Homer A Macapinlac; Yang Lu Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-04-15
Authors: Jeremie Calais; Francesco Ceci; Matthias Eiber; Thomas A Hope; Michael S Hofman; Christoph Rischpler; Tore Bach-Gansmo; Cristina Nanni; Bital Savir-Baruch; David Elashoff; Tristan Grogan; Magnus Dahlbom; Roger Slavik; Jeannine Gartmann; Kathleen Nguyen; Vincent Lok; Hossein Jadvar; Amar U Kishan; Matthew B Rettig; Robert E Reiter; Wolfgang P Fendler; Johannes Czernin Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2019-07-30 Impact factor: 41.316