Lars P Tolbod1, Maria M Nielsen1, Bodil G Pedersen2, Søren Høyer3, Hendrik J Harms1, Michael Borre4, Per Borghammer1, Kirsten Bouchelouche1, Jørgen Frøkiær1, Jens Sørensen1,5. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET Centre, Aarhus University Hospital Aarhus C, Denmark. 2. Department of Radiology, Aarhus University Hospital Aarhus C, Denmark. 3. Department of Histopathology, Aarhus University Hospital Aarhus C, Denmark. 4. Department of Urology, Aarhus University Hospital Aarhus C, Denmark. 5. Department of Surgical Sciences, Nuclear Medicine and PET, Uppsala University Uppsala, Sweden.
Abstract
Tumor blood flow (TBF) measurements in prostate cancer (PCa) provide an integrative index of tumor growth, which could be important for primary diagnosis and therapy response evaluation. 15O-water PET is the non-invasive gold standard but is technically demanding. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of three different non-invasive strategies with an invasively measured arterial input function (BSIF): Using image-derived input functions (IDIF) from either 1) a separate heart scan or 2) the pelvic scan or 3) a populations-based input function (PBIF). Nine patients with biopsy-verified PCa scheduled for prostatectomy were included. All patients were characterized with serum levels of PSA (s-PSA), multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and post-surgical histopathology Gleason Grade. Dynamic 15O-water was performed of the heart and the pelvic area 15 minutes apart. TBF estimated from both wash-in (K1) and wash-out (k2) constants was calculated using a one-compartmental model. Results: Mean (range) s-PSA was 12 (3-27) ng/mL, Gleason Grade Group was 2.9 (1-5), k2 was 0.44 (0.007-1.2), and K1 was 0.24 (0.07-0.55) mL/mL/min. k2 (BSIF) correlated with s-PSA (r=0.86, P<0.01) and Gleason Grade Group (rho=0.78, P=0.01). BSIF, heart-IDIF and PBIF provided near-identical k2 and K1 (r>0.95, P<0.001) with slopes near unity. The correlations of BSIF and pelvic-IDIF rate constants were good (r>0.95, P<0.001), but individual errors high. In conclusion, non-invasive protocols for 15O-water PET with IDIF or PBIF accurately measures perfusion in prostate cancer and might be useful for evaluation of tumor aggressiveness and treatment response.
Tumor blood flow (TBF) measurements in prostate cancer (PCa) provide an integrative index of tumor growth, which could be important for primary diagnosis and therapy response evaluation. 15O-water PET is the non-invasive gold standard but is technically demanding. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of three different non-invasive strategies with an invasively measured arterial input function (BSIF): Using image-derived input functions (IDIF) from either 1) a separate heart scan or 2) the pelvic scan or 3) a populations-based input function (PBIF). Nine patients with biopsy-verified PCa scheduled for prostatectomy were included. All patients were characterized with serum levels of PSA (s-PSA), multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and post-surgical histopathology Gleason Grade. Dynamic 15O-water was performed of the heart and the pelvic area 15 minutes apart. TBF estimated from both wash-in (K1) and wash-out (k2) constants was calculated using a one-compartmental model. Results: Mean (range) s-PSA was 12 (3-27) ng/mL, Gleason Grade Group was 2.9 (1-5), k2 was 0.44 (0.007-1.2), and K1 was 0.24 (0.07-0.55) mL/mL/min. k2 (BSIF) correlated with s-PSA (r=0.86, P<0.01) and Gleason Grade Group (rho=0.78, P=0.01). BSIF, heart-IDIF and PBIF provided near-identical k2 and K1 (r>0.95, P<0.001) with slopes near unity. The correlations of BSIF and pelvic-IDIF rate constants were good (r>0.95, P<0.001), but individual errors high. In conclusion, non-invasive protocols for 15O-water PET with IDIF or PBIF accurately measures perfusion in prostate cancer and might be useful for evaluation of tumor aggressiveness and treatment response.
Entities:
Keywords:
15O-H2O; Tumor blood flow; prostate cancer
Authors: Sergey V Nesterov; Chunlei Han; Maija Mäki; Sami Kajander; Alexandru G Naum; Hans Helenius; Irina Lisinen; Heikki Ukkonen; Mikko Pietilä; Esa Joutsiniemi; Juhani Knuuti Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-04-30 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: I Apostolova; F Hofheinz; R Buchert; I G Steffen; R Michel; C Rosner; V Prasad; C Köhler; T Derlin; W Brenner; S Marnitz Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-02-18 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Elżbieta Łuczyńska; Sylwia Heinze-Paluchowska; Paweł Blecharz; Barbara Jereczek-Fossa; Giuseppe Petralia; Massimo Bellomi; Andrzej Stelmach Journal: Med Sci Monit Date: 2015-01-13
Authors: Hendrik Johannes Harms; Lars Poulsen Tolbod; Nils Henrik Stubkjær Hansson; Tanja Kero; Lovisa Holm Orndahl; Won Yong Kim; Tomas Bjerner; Kirsten Bouchelouche; Henrik Wiggers; Jørgen Frøkiær; Jens Sörensen Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2015-10-26
Authors: Naresh Regula; Hadis Honarvar; Mark Lubberink; Håkan Jorulf; Sam Ladjevardi; Michael Häggman; Gunnar Antoni; Jos Buijs; Irina Velikyan; Jens Sörensen Journal: Int J Med Sci Date: 2020-01-14 Impact factor: 3.738