Bernard H E Jansen1,2, Gem M Kramer1, Matthijs C F Cysouw1, Maqsood M Yaqub1, Bart de Keizer3, Jules Lavalaye4, Jan Booij5, Hebert Alberto Vargas6, Michael J Morris6, André N Vis2, Reindert J A van Moorselaar2, Otto S Hoekstra1, Ronald Boellaard1, Daniela E Oprea-Lager7. 1. Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, St-Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and. 6. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 7. Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands d.oprea-lager@vumc.nl.
Abstract
PET is increasingly used for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostics. Important PCa radiotracers include 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen HBED-CC (68Ga-PSMA), 18F-DCFPyL, 18F-fluoromethylcholine (18F-FCH), and 18F-dihydrotestosterone (18F-FDHT). Knowledge on the variability of tracer uptake in healthy tissues is important for accurate PET interpretation, because malignancy is suspected only if the uptake of a lesion contrasts with its background. Therefore, the aim of this study was to quantify uptake variability of PCa tracers in healthy tissues and identify stable reference regions for PET interpretation. Methods: A total of 232 PCa PET/CT scans from multiple hospitals was analyzed, including 87 68Ga-PSMA scans, 50 18F-DCFPyL scans, 68 18F-FCH scans, and 27 18F-FDHT scans. Tracer uptake was assessed in the blood pool, lung, liver, bone marrow, and muscle using several SUVs (SUVmax, SUVmean, SUVpeak). Variability in uptake between patients was analyzed using the coefficient of variation (COV%). For all tracers, SUV reference ranges (95th percentiles) were calculated, which could be applicable as image-based quality control for future PET acquisitions. Results: For 68Ga-PSMA, the lowest uptake variability was observed in the blood pool (COV, 19.9%), which was significantly more stable than all other tissues (COV, 29.8%-35.2%; P = 0.001-0.024). For 18F-DCFPyL, the lowest variability was observed in the blood pool and liver (COV, 14.4% and 21.7%, respectively; P = 0.001-0.003). The least variable 18F-FCH uptake was observed in the liver, blood pool, and bone marrow (COV, 16.8%-24.2%; P = 0.001-0.012). For 18F-FDHT, low uptake variability was observed in all tissues, except the lung (COV, 14.6%-23.6%; P = 0.001-0.040). The different SUV types had limited effect on variability (COVs within 3 percentage points). Conclusion: In this multicenter analysis, healthy tissues with limited uptake variability were identified, which may serve as reference regions for PCa PET interpretation. These reference regions include the blood pool for 68Ga-PSMA and 18F-DCFPyL and the liver for 18F-FCH and 18F-FDHT. Healthy tissue SUV reference ranges are presented and applicable as image-based quality control.
PET is increasingly used for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostics. Important PCa radiotracers include 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen HBED-CC (68Ga-PSMA), 18F-DCFPyL, 18F-fluoromethylcholine (18F-FCH), and 18F-dihydrotestosterone (18F-FDHT). Knowledge on the variability of tracer uptake in healthy tissues is important for accurate PET interpretation, because malignancy is suspected only if the uptake of a lesion contrasts with its background. Therefore, the aim of this study was to quantify uptake variability of PCa tracers in healthy tissues and identify stable reference regions for PET interpretation. Methods: A total of 232 PCa PET/CT scans from multiple hospitals was analyzed, including 87 68Ga-PSMA scans, 50 18F-DCFPyL scans, 68 18F-FCH scans, and 27 18F-FDHT scans. Tracer uptake was assessed in the blood pool, lung, liver, bone marrow, and muscle using several SUVs (SUVmax, SUVmean, SUVpeak). Variability in uptake between patients was analyzed using the coefficient of variation (COV%). For all tracers, SUV reference ranges (95th percentiles) were calculated, which could be applicable as image-based quality control for future PET acquisitions. Results: For 68Ga-PSMA, the lowest uptake variability was observed in the blood pool (COV, 19.9%), which was significantly more stable than all other tissues (COV, 29.8%-35.2%; P = 0.001-0.024). For 18F-DCFPyL, the lowest variability was observed in the blood pool and liver (COV, 14.4% and 21.7%, respectively; P = 0.001-0.003). The least variable 18F-FCH uptake was observed in the liver, blood pool, and bone marrow (COV, 16.8%-24.2%; P = 0.001-0.012). For 18F-FDHT, low uptake variability was observed in all tissues, except the lung (COV, 14.6%-23.6%; P = 0.001-0.040). The different SUV types had limited effect on variability (COVs within 3 percentage points). Conclusion: In this multicenter analysis, healthy tissues with limited uptake variability were identified, which may serve as reference regions for PCa PET interpretation. These reference regions include the blood pool for 68Ga-PSMA and 18F-DCFPyL and the liver for 18F-FCH and 18F-FDHT. Healthy tissue SUV reference ranges are presented and applicable as image-based quality control.
Authors: Xin Li; Steven P Rowe; Jeffrey P Leal; Michael A Gorin; Mohamad E Allaf; Ashley E Ross; Kenneth J Pienta; Martin A Lodge; Martin G Pomper Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-12-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Matthias Eiber; Ken Herrmann; Jeremie Calais; Boris Hadaschik; Frederik L Giesel; Markus Hartenbach; Thomas Hope; Robert Reiter; Tobias Maurer; Wolfgang A Weber; Wolfgang P Fendler Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Zsolt Szabo; Esther Mena; Steven P Rowe; Donika Plyku; Rosa Nidal; Mario A Eisenberger; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Hong Fan; Robert F Dannals; Ying Chen; Ronnie C Mease; Melin Vranesic; Akrita Bhatnagar; George Sgouros; Steve Y Cho; Martin G Pomper Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Daniela E Oprea-Lager; Gem Kramer; Peter M van de Ven; Alfons J M van den Eertwegh; Reindert J A van Moorselaar; Patrick Schober; Otto S Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Ronald Boellaard Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-12-23 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Matthijs C F Cysouw; Gerbrand M Kramer; Virginie Frings; Adrianus J De Langen; Mariëlle J Wondergem; Laura M Kenny; Eric O Aboagye; Carsten Kobe; Jürgen Wolf; Otto S Hoekstra; Ronald Boellaard Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2017-05-10 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Bernard H E Jansen; Matthijs C F Cysouw; André N Vis; Reindert J A van Moorselaar; Jens Voortman; Yves J L Bodar; Patrick R Schober; N Harry Hendrikse; Otto S Hoekstra; Ronald Boellaard; D E Oprea-Lager Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-01-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: M C F Cysouw; B H E Jansen; M Yaqub; J Voortman; A N Vis; R J A van Moorselaar; O S Hoekstra; R Boellaard; D E Oprea-Lager Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Lemonitsa H Mammatas; Clasina M Venema; Carolina P Schröder; Henrica C W de Vet; Michel van Kruchten; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Maqsood M Yaqub; Henk M W Verheul; Epie Boven; Bert van der Vegt; Erik F J de Vries; Elisabeth G E de Vries; Otto S Hoekstra; Geke A P Hospers; C Willemien Menke-van der Houven van Oordt Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2020-04-19 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Esmée C A van der Sar; Adinda J S Kühr; Sander C Ebbers; Andrew M Henderson; Bart de Keizer; Marnix G E H Lam; Arthur J A T Braat Journal: Biomedicines Date: 2022-07-01
Authors: Andrei Gafita; Hui Wang; Andrew Robertson; Wesley R Armstrong; Raphael Zaum; Manuel Weber; Farid Yagubbayli; Clemens Kratochwil; Tristan R Grogan; Kathleen Nguyen; Fernando Navarro; Rouzbeh Esfandiari; Isabel Rauscher; Bjoern Menze; David Elashoff; Ebrahim S Delpassand; Ken Herrmann; Johannes Czernin; Michael S Hofman; Jeremie Calais; Wolfgang P Fendler; Matthias Eiber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Andrei Gafita; Jeremie Calais; Charlott Franz; Isabel Rauscher; Hui Wang; Andrew Roberstson; Johannes Czernin; Wolfgang A Weber; Matthias Eiber Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2019-12-02 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: M J M Uijen; Y H W Derks; W A M van Gemert; J Nagarajah; R I J Merkx; M G M Schilham; J Roosen; B M Privé; S A M van Lith; C M L van Herpen; M Gotthardt; S Heskamp Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-06-12 Impact factor: 9.236