PURPOSE: Accurate preoperative staging of prostate cancer is essential for treatment planning. Conventional imaging is limited in detection of metastases. Our primary aim was to determine if [18F]fluciclovine positron emission tomography/computerized tomography is an early indicator of subclinical metastasis among patients with high risk prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 68 patients with unfavorable intermediate to very high risk prostate cancer without systemic disease on conventional imaging were recruited before robotic radical prostatectomy with extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Diagnostic performance of [18F]fluciclovine positron emission tomography/computerized tomography and conventional imaging for detection of metastatic disease, and correlation of positivity to node and metastatic deposit size were determined. RESULTS: Overall 57 of 68 patients completed the protocol, of whom 31 had nodal metastasis on histology. [18F]Fluciclovine positron emission tomography/computerized tomography sensitivity and specificity in detecting nodal metastasis was 55.3% and 84.8% per patient, and 54.8% and 96.4% per region (right and left pelvis, presacral and nonregional), respectively. Compared with conventional imaging [18F]Fluciclovine positron emission tomography/computerized tomography had significantly higher sensitivity on patient based (55.3% vs 33.3%, p <0.01) and region based (54.8% vs 19.4%, p <0.01) analysis, detecting metastasis in 7 more patients and 22 more regions, with similar high specificity. Four additional patients had distant disease or other cancer detected on [18F] fluciclovine positron emission tomography/computerized tomography which precluded surgery. Detection of metastasis was related to size of metastatic deposits within lymph nodes and overall metastatic burden. CONCLUSIONS: [18F]Fluciclovine positron emission tomography/computerized tomography detects occult metastases not identified on conventional imaging and may help guide treatment decisions and lymph node dissection due to high specificity for metastatic disease.
PURPOSE: Accurate preoperative staging of prostate cancer is essential for treatment planning. Conventional imaging is limited in detection of metastases. Our primary aim was to determine if [18F]fluciclovine positron emission tomography/computerized tomography is an early indicator of subclinical metastasis among patients with high risk prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 68 patients with unfavorable intermediate to very high risk prostate cancer without systemic disease on conventional imaging were recruited before robotic radical prostatectomy with extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Diagnostic performance of [18F]fluciclovine positron emission tomography/computerized tomography and conventional imaging for detection of metastatic disease, and correlation of positivity to node and metastatic deposit size were determined. RESULTS: Overall 57 of 68 patients completed the protocol, of whom 31 had nodal metastasis on histology. [18F]Fluciclovine positron emission tomography/computerized tomography sensitivity and specificity in detecting nodal metastasis was 55.3% and 84.8% per patient, and 54.8% and 96.4% per region (right and left pelvis, presacral and nonregional), respectively. Compared with conventional imaging [18F]Fluciclovine positron emission tomography/computerized tomography had significantly higher sensitivity on patient based (55.3% vs 33.3%, p <0.01) and region based (54.8% vs 19.4%, p <0.01) analysis, detecting metastasis in 7 more patients and 22 more regions, with similar high specificity. Four additional patients had distant disease or other cancer detected on [18F] fluciclovine positron emission tomography/computerized tomography which precluded surgery. Detection of metastasis was related to size of metastatic deposits within lymph nodes and overall metastatic burden. CONCLUSIONS:[18F]Fluciclovine positron emission tomography/computerized tomography detects occult metastases not identified on conventional imaging and may help guide treatment decisions and lymph node dissection due to high specificity for metastatic disease.
Authors: David M Schuster; John R Votaw; Peter T Nieh; Weiping Yu; Jonathon A Nye; Viraj Master; F DuBois Bowman; Muta M Issa; Mark M Goodman Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Bital Savir-Baruch; Kevin P Banks; Jonathan E McConathy; Olga P Molchanova-Cook; Ephraim E Parent; Amol Takalkar; Mark Tulchinsky; Jian Q Yu; Rathan M Subramaniam; David M Schuster Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 7.794
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: Laura Van den Bergh; Evelyne Lerut; Karin Haustermans; Christophe M Deroose; Raymond Oyen; Sofie Isebaert; Tom Budiharto; Filip Ameye; Felix M Mottaghy; Kris Bogaerts; Hendrik Van Poppel; Steven Joniau Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2015-02-02 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: David M Schuster; Peter T Nieh; Ashesh B Jani; Rianot Amzat; F Dubois Bowman; Raghuveer K Halkar; Viraj A Master; Jonathon A Nye; Oluwaseun A Odewole; Adeboye O Osunkoya; Bital Savir-Baruch; Pooneh Alaei-Taleghani; Mark M Goodman Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-10-19 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Cordula A Jilg; Vanessa Drendel; H Christian Rischke; Teresa Beck; Werner Vach; Kathrin Schaal; Ulrich Wetterauer; Wolfgang Schultze-Seemann; Philipp T Meyer Journal: Theranostics Date: 2017-04-10 Impact factor: 11.556
Authors: Sagar A Patel; Subir Goyal; Yuan Liu; Drew Moghanaki; Pretesh R Patel; Sheela Hanasoge; Vishal R Dhere; Jay W Shelton; Karen D Godette; Ashesh B Jani; Bruce Hershatter; Benjamin W Fischer-Valuck Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-12-01
Authors: Michael A Liss; Robin J Leach; Martin G Sanda; Oliver J Semmes Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-10-22 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Samuel J Galgano; Andrew M McDonald; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Kristin K Porter; Gagandeep Choudhary; Constantine Burgan; Pradeep Bhambhvani; Jeffrey W Nix; Desiree E Morgan; Yufeng Li; John V Thomas; Jonathan McConathy Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2020-10-14 Impact factor: 6.582