Laure Michaud1, Karim A Touijer2, Audrey Mauguen3, Michael J Zelefsky4, Michael J Morris5, Serge K Lyashschenko1, Jeremy C Durack1, John L Humm6, Wolfgang A Weber1,7, Heiko Schöder8. 1. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 2. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 5. Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 6. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; and. 7. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 8. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York schoderh@mskcc.org.
Abstract
Our purpose was to evaluate the performance of 11C-choline PET/CT in detecting biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) in a large non-European cohort (in the context of emerging evidence for prostate-specific membrane antigen PET in this setting) and to map patterns of PCa recurrence. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 11C-choline PET/CT scans from 287 patients who were enrolled in an imaging protocol based on rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels (mean, 3.43 ng/mL; median, 0.94 ng/mL; range, 0.15-89.91 ng/mL) and suspected recurrent PCa. A total of 187 patients had undergone primary radical prostatectomy (RP) (79/187 had secondary radiotherapy), 30 had undergone primary radiotherapy, and 70 had a persistent PSA elevation after receiving initial treatment (69 after RP, 1 after radiotherapy). The level of suspicion for recurrence on 11C-choline PET/CT was scored (0, negative; 1, equivocal; 2, positive) by 2 readers. The correlation between 11C-choline PET/CT positivity and initial treatment, Gleason score, National Comprehensive Cancer Network stage, PSA level, PSA doubling time, PSA velocity, and time between initial treatment and PET imaging was evaluated. Prostate Cancer Molecular Imaging Standardized Evaluation (PROMISE) criteria were used to map 11C-choline recurrence patterns. Results: Considering scores 1 and 2 as positives, consensus between the 2 readers deemed 66% of the 11C-choline PET/CT scans as positive. When sorted by PSA level, 45% of patients with a PSA of less than 0.5 ng/mL, 56% of patients with a PSA of 0.5-0.99 ng/mL, 70% of patients with a PSA of 1.0-1.99 ng/mL, and 90% of patients with a PSA of at least 2.0 ng/mL scored either 1 or 2 on 11C-choline PET/CT scans. When considering scores of 2 only, 11C-choline PET/CT positivity was 54% (28%, 46%, 62%, and 81%, respectively, for patients with PSA < 0.5 ng/mL, 0.5-0.99 ng/mL, 1.0-1.99 ng/mL, and ≥ 2.0 ng/mL). In multivariate analysis, only PSA level was significantly associated with scan positivity. Pattern analysis showed that pelvic lymph nodes were the most common site of recurrence, and 28% of patients had 11C-choline-positive suspected recurrences outside the initial treatment field. Conclusion: 11C-choline PET/CT can detect PCa recurrence even among patients with low PSA levels when interpretation accounts for the clinical context, providing a certain pretest probability. Until prostate-specific membrane antigen agents are fully approved for PCa, choline PET/CT may provide clinical utility.
Our purpose was to evaluate the performance of 11C-choline PET/CT in detecting biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) in a large non-European cohort (in the context of emerging evidence for prostate-specific membrane antigen PET in this setting) and to map patterns of PCa recurrence. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 11C-choline PET/CT scans from 287 patients who were enrolled in an imaging protocol based on rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels (mean, 3.43 ng/mL; median, 0.94 ng/mL; range, 0.15-89.91 ng/mL) and suspected recurrent PCa. A total of 187 patients had undergone primary radical prostatectomy (RP) (79/187 had secondary radiotherapy), 30 had undergone primary radiotherapy, and 70 had a persistent PSA elevation after receiving initial treatment (69 after RP, 1 after radiotherapy). The level of suspicion for recurrence on 11C-choline PET/CT was scored (0, negative; 1, equivocal; 2, positive) by 2 readers. The correlation between 11C-choline PET/CT positivity and initial treatment, Gleason score, National Comprehensive Cancer Network stage, PSA level, PSA doubling time, PSA velocity, and time between initial treatment and PET imaging was evaluated. Prostate Cancer Molecular Imaging Standardized Evaluation (PROMISE) criteria were used to map 11C-choline recurrence patterns. Results: Considering scores 1 and 2 as positives, consensus between the 2 readers deemed 66% of the 11C-choline PET/CT scans as positive. When sorted by PSA level, 45% of patients with a PSA of less than 0.5 ng/mL, 56% of patients with a PSA of 0.5-0.99 ng/mL, 70% of patients with a PSA of 1.0-1.99 ng/mL, and 90% of patients with a PSA of at least 2.0 ng/mL scored either 1 or 2 on 11C-choline PET/CT scans. When considering scores of 2 only, 11C-choline PET/CT positivity was 54% (28%, 46%, 62%, and 81%, respectively, for patients with PSA < 0.5 ng/mL, 0.5-0.99 ng/mL, 1.0-1.99 ng/mL, and ≥ 2.0 ng/mL). In multivariate analysis, only PSA level was significantly associated with scan positivity. Pattern analysis showed that pelvic lymph nodes were the most common site of recurrence, and 28% of patients had 11C-choline-positive suspected recurrences outside the initial treatment field. Conclusion: 11C-choline PET/CT can detect PCa recurrence even among patients with low PSA levels when interpretation accounts for the clinical context, providing a certain pretest probability. Until prostate-specific membrane antigen agents are fully approved for PCa, choline PET/CT may provide clinical utility.
Authors: Anuj Goenka; Juan Martin Magsanoc; Xin Pei; Michael Schechter; Marisa Kollmeier; Brett Cox; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Michael J Zelefsky Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-01-31 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: John W Yaxley; Sheliyan Raveenthiran; François-Xavier Nouhaud; Hemamali Samartunga; Anna J Yaxley; Geoff Coughlin; Brett Delahunt; Lars Egevad; Louise McEwan; David Wong Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 7.450
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: William P Parker; Brian J Davis; Sean S Park; Kenneth R Olivier; Richard Choo; Mark A Nathan; Val J Lowe; Timothy J Welch; Jaden D Evans; William S Harmsen; Harras B Zaid; Ilya Sobol; Daniel M Moreira; Rimki Haloi; Matthew K Tollefson; Matthew T Gettman; Stephen A Boorjian; Lance A Mynderse; R Jeffrey Karnes; Eugene D Kwon Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-09-03 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Laura Evangelista; Fabio Zattoni; Andrea Guttilla; Giorgio Saladini; Filiberto Zattoni; Patrick M Colletti; Domenico Rubello Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Wolfgang P Fendler; Jeremie Calais; Matthias Eiber; Robert R Flavell; Ashley Mishoe; Felix Y Feng; Hao G Nguyen; Robert E Reiter; Matthew B Rettig; Shozo Okamoto; Louise Emmett; Helle D Zacho; Harun Ilhan; Axel Wetter; Christoph Rischpler; Heiko Schoder; Irene A Burger; Jeannine Gartmann; Raven Smith; Eric J Small; Roger Slavik; Peter R Carroll; Ken Herrmann; Johannes Czernin; Thomas A Hope Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Yunqing Li; Marianna Inglese; Suraiya Dubash; Chris Barnes; Diana Brickute; Marta Costa Braga; Ning Wang; Alice Beckley; Kathrin Heinzmann; Louis Allott; Haonan Lu; Cen Chen; Ruisi Fu; Laurence Carroll; Eric O Aboagye Journal: Pharmaceutics Date: 2021-08-12 Impact factor: 6.321