Recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: restaging performance of 18F-choline hybrid PET/MRI.
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Choline
/ analogs & derivatives
Fluorine Radioisotopes
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Male
Middle Aged
Multimodal Imaging
/ methods
Neoplasm Recurrence, Local
/ diagnostic imaging
Neoplasm Staging
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
/ methods
Prospective Studies
Prostatectomy
Prostatic Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Radiopharmaceuticals
Whole Body Imaging
/ methods
Biochemical recurrence
Pelvic mpMRI
Prostate cancer
Radical prostatectomy
Whole-body FCH hybrid PET/MRI
Journal
Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England)
ISSN: 1559-131X
Titre abrégé: Med Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9435512
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Jun 2019
12 Jun 2019
Historique:
received:
15
04
2019
accepted:
07
06
2019
entrez:
14
6
2019
pubmed:
14
6
2019
medline:
9
10
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To evaluate the diagnostic performance of a whole-body 18F-choline (FCH) hybrid PET/MRI for prostate cancer patients at biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy (RP) compared to pelvic multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), one of the standard imaging modality for this patient population. From 2010 to 2016, 58 whole-body FCH PET/MRI studies with mpMRI acquisitions were performed in 53 prostate cancer patients relapsing after curative RP. Median PSA and PSA doubling time (PSA DT) at PET study were 1.5 ng/ml and 6.5 months, respectively. The overall positivity rate of FCH PET/MRI was 58.6% (n = 34), dropping to 44% in patients with a PSA ≤ 2 ng/ml (n = 36). Median PSA values in positive and negative PET/MRI studies were 2.2 ng/ml and 0.8 ng/ml, respectively, with no differences in PSA DT (6.5 vs. 6.6 months). A PSA value ≥ 1.5 ng/ml was a significant predictor of positivity on PET/MRI studies. Compared to PET, mpMRI identified more local relapses (17 vs. 14, p = 0.453) while PET outperformed whole-body Dixon MRI for regional (16 vs. 9, p = 0.016) and distant (12 vs. 6, p = 0.031) metastases. Compared to pelvic mpMRI, the treatment approach turned out to be influenced more frequently using whole-body FCH hybrid PET/MRI studies (58.6% vs. 38%). In prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence after RP, whole-body FCH PET/MRI achieved a higher detection rate of nodal/distant metastases compared to pelvic mpMRI alone, increasing the change of treatment strategy by more than 20%.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31190232
doi: 10.1007/s12032-019-1291-z
pii: 10.1007/s12032-019-1291-z
doi:
Substances chimiques
Fluorine Radioisotopes
0
Radiopharmaceuticals
0
fluoromethylcholine
0
Choline
N91BDP6H0X
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
67Subventions
Organisme : Fondation pour la lutte contre le cancer et pour des recherches médico-biologiques, Geneva, Switzerland.
ID : Fondation pour la lutte contre le cancer et pour des recherches médico-biologiques, Geneva, Switzerland.
Références
JAMA. 1999 May 5;281(17):1591-7
pubmed: 10235151
J Urol. 2004 Jun;171(6 Pt 1):2221-5
pubmed: 15126789
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008 Jan;35(1):18-23
pubmed: 17891394
Nuklearmedizin. 2009;48(1):1-9; quiz N2-3
pubmed: 19212605
Eur J Radiol. 2012 Apr;81(4):700-8
pubmed: 21330082
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012 Apr;39(4):589-96
pubmed: 22231016
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Feb 1;85(2):378-84
pubmed: 22717242
World J Urol. 2013 Apr;31(2):319-23
pubmed: 22814886
MAGMA. 2013 Feb;26(1):57-69
pubmed: 23008016
J Urol. 2013 Apr;189(4):1308-13
pubmed: 23123372
J Urol. 2013 Jan;189(1):105-10
pubmed: 23164385
J Urol. 2013 Aug;190(2):441-9
pubmed: 23707439
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014 Jan;41(1):68-78
pubmed: 24104592
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014 May;41(5):887-97
pubmed: 24352789
J Nucl Med. 2014 Feb;55(2):223-32
pubmed: 24434294
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014 Sep;41(9):1744-55
pubmed: 24841413
J Nucl Med. 2014 Sep;55(9):1424-9
pubmed: 24935990
Am J Clin Oncol. 2017 Apr;40(2):194-199
pubmed: 25222076
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Dec 1;32(34):3892-8
pubmed: 25366677
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016 Jan;43(1):55-69
pubmed: 26450693
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016 Jan;43(1):70-83
pubmed: 26508290
Front Oncol. 2016 Mar 31;6:73
pubmed: 27065024
Eur Urol. 2017 Jan;71(1):81-92
pubmed: 27317091
Urol Oncol. 2016 Nov;34(11):482.e5-482.e10
pubmed: 27346339
J Urol. 2017 Jan;197(1):129-134
pubmed: 27449262
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Nov 10;34(32):3864-3871
pubmed: 27480153
Acta Oncol. 2017 Jan;56(1):27-32
pubmed: 27587084
Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):630-642
pubmed: 27591931
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 May;44(5):776-787
pubmed: 27988802
Eur Urol Focus. 2016 Jun;2(2):139-150
pubmed: 28723528
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Dec;44(13):2179-2188
pubmed: 28803358
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018 Jan;45(1):20-30
pubmed: 29032394
Eur Urol. 2018 Jun;73(6):879-887
pubmed: 29195777
Am J Clin Oncol. 2018 Oct;41(10):960-962
pubmed: 29315174
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Dec;19(12):e696-e708
pubmed: 30507436