Nieroshan Rajarubendra1,2, Fabio Almeida3, Zarko Manojlovic2, Chisato Ohe1, Nariman Ahmadi1, Giovanni Cacciamani1, Michael Qiu1, Andre Abreu1, Jie Cai1, Gus Miranda1, Mariana C Stern1,4, John Carpten2, Peter Kuhn5,6, Mahul B Amin7, Parkash S Gill8, Manju Aron9, Inderbir S Gill1. 1. USC Institute of Urology, Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. 2. Institute of Translational Genomics, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. 3. Phoenix Molecular Imaging, Phoenix, Arizona. 4. Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. 5. Department of Aerospace, Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering, Viterbi School of Engineering, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. 6. Department of Biological Sciences, Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. 7. Department of Pathology, University of Tennessee, Memphis, Tennessee. 8. Departments of Medicine, Pathology and Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. 9. Department of Pathology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Conventional imaging cannot definitively detect nodal metastases of prostate cancer. We histologically validated C-acetate positron emission tomography/computerized tomography to identify nodal metastases, examining prostate cancer factors that influence detection rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with C-acetate avid positron emission tomography/computerized tomography imaged pelvic/retroperitoneal lymph nodes underwent high extended robotic lymphadenectomy. A standardized mapping template comprising 8 predetermined anatomical regions was dissected during lymphadenectomy, allowing for matched, region based analysis and comparison of imaging and histological data. RESULTS: In 25 patients a total of 2,149 lymph nodes were excised (mean 86 per patient, range 27 to 136) and 528 (22%) harbored metastases (mean 21 positive nodes per patient, range 0 to 109). A total of 174 anatomical regions had matching imaging histological data. C-acetate positron emission tomography/computerized tomography accurately identified 48 node-positive regions and accurately ruled out 88 regions as metastasis-free. C-acetate sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 67%, 84%, 74% and 79%, respectively. An increasing, histologically measured metastatic lesion size in long axis diameter of 5 or less, 6 to 10, 11 to 15, 16 to 20 and 21 mm or greater correlated with improved C-acetate detection rates of 45%, 62%, 81%, 89% and 100%, respectively. Each standard uptake value unit increase correlated with a 1.9 mm increase in nodal long axis diameter (p <0.001) and a 1.2 mm increase in short axis diameter (p <0.001). Positive C-acetate positron emission tomography/computerized tomography findings correlated with histological lymph node size (long axis diameter 12 mm and short axis diameter 6 mm), metastatic lesion size (long axis diameter 11 mm and short axis diameter 6 mm) and extranodal extension (positive 88% vs false-negative 58%, p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: C-acetate positron emission tomography/computerized tomography can identify prostate cancer metastatic nodal disease. However, it underestimates the true cephalad extent of nodal involvement, performing better in the pelvis than in the retroperitoneum. Standard uptake value, histological nodal size, intranodal metastasis size and extranodal extension correlate with cancer bearing nodes.
PURPOSE: Conventional imaging cannot definitively detect nodal metastases of prostate cancer. We histologically validated C-acetate positron emission tomography/computerized tomography to identify nodal metastases, examining prostate cancer factors that influence detection rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with C-acetate avid positron emission tomography/computerized tomography imaged pelvic/retroperitoneal lymph nodes underwent high extended robotic lymphadenectomy. A standardized mapping template comprising 8 predetermined anatomical regions was dissected during lymphadenectomy, allowing for matched, region based analysis and comparison of imaging and histological data. RESULTS: In 25 patients a total of 2,149 lymph nodes were excised (mean 86 per patient, range 27 to 136) and 528 (22%) harbored metastases (mean 21 positive nodes per patient, range 0 to 109). A total of 174 anatomical regions had matching imaging histological data. C-acetate positron emission tomography/computerized tomography accurately identified 48 node-positive regions and accurately ruled out 88 regions as metastasis-free. C-acetate sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 67%, 84%, 74% and 79%, respectively. An increasing, histologically measured metastatic lesion size in long axis diameter of 5 or less, 6 to 10, 11 to 15, 16 to 20 and 21 mm or greater correlated with improved C-acetate detection rates of 45%, 62%, 81%, 89% and 100%, respectively. Each standard uptake value unit increase correlated with a 1.9 mm increase in nodal long axis diameter (p <0.001) and a 1.2 mm increase in short axis diameter (p <0.001). Positive C-acetate positron emission tomography/computerized tomography findings correlated with histological lymph node size (long axis diameter 12 mm and short axis diameter 6 mm), metastatic lesion size (long axis diameter 11 mm and short axis diameter 6 mm) and extranodal extension (positive 88% vs false-negative 58%, p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: C-acetate positron emission tomography/computerized tomography can identify prostate cancer metastatic nodal disease. However, it underestimates the true cephalad extent of nodal involvement, performing better in the pelvis than in the retroperitoneum. Standard uptake value, histological nodal size, intranodal metastasis size and extranodal extension correlate with cancer bearing nodes.
Authors: Derya Tilki; Philipp Mandel; Flora Seeliger; Alexander Kretschmer; Alexander Karl; Süleyman Ergün; Michael Seitz; Christian G Stief Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-08-30 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Lars Budäus; Sami-Ramzi Leyh-Bannurah; Georg Salomon; Uwe Michl; Hans Heinzer; Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen; Thomas Steuber; Clemens Rosenbaum Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Giorgio Gandaglia; Nicola Fossati; Emanuele Zaffuto; Marco Bandini; Paolo Dell'Oglio; Carlo Andrea Bravi; Giuseppe Fallara; Francesco Pellegrino; Luigi Nocera; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Zhe Tian; Massimo Freschi; Rodolfo Montironi; Francesco Montorsi; Alberto Briganti Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2017-04-12 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Johannes V Swinnen; Paul P Van Veldhoven; Leen Timmermans; Ellen De Schrijver; Koen Brusselmans; Frank Vanderhoydonc; Tine Van de Sande; Hannelore Heemers; Walter Heyns; Guido Verhoeven Journal: Biochem Biophys Res Commun Date: 2003-03-21 Impact factor: 3.575
Authors: Asha Leisser; Konstatin Pruscha; Philipp Ubl; Wolfgang Wadsak; Marius Mayerhöfer; Markus Mitterhauser; Marcus Hacker; Gero Kramer; Shahrokh Shariat; Georgios Karanikas; Markus Hartenbach; Alexander R Haug Journal: Prostate Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Mohammed Haseebuddin; Farrokh Dehdashti; Barry A Siegel; Jingxia Liu; Elizabeth B Roth; Kenneth G Nepple; Cary L Siegel; Keith C Fischer; Adam S Kibel; Gerald L Andriole; Tom R Miller Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-03-07 Impact factor: 10.057