Evaluation of [(18)F]-choline PET/CT for Staging and Restaging of Prostate Cancer

Overview

Journal Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging

Specialties Biophysics
Nuclear Medicine
Radiology

Date 2007 Oct 11

PMID 17926036

Citations 101

Authors

Daniela B Husarik

Raymond Miralbell

Markus Dubs

Hubert John

Olivier T Giger

Albert Gelet

Tibor Cservenyak

Thomas F Hany

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of [(18)F]-choline (FCH) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for staging and restaging of prostate cancer.

Methods: FCH PET/CT was performed in 111 patients with prostate cancer using 200 MBq FCH: 43 patients [mean age 63 years; mean prostrate specific antigen (PSA) 11.58 microg/l] were examined for initial staging, and 68 patients (mean age 66.4 years) were examined for restaging (mean PSA 10.81 microg/l). FCH PET/CT results were correlated to histopathology, bone scan, morphology as revealed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and CT, PET/CT follow-up and PSA follow-up after therapy.

Results: FCH PET/CT scans at initial staging correctly showed no metastases in 36/38 patients undergoing radical surgery, as confirmed by PSA levels <0.1 microg/l 6 months postoperatively. Lymphadenectomy was performed in 24 of these patients, revealing four false FCH-negative lymph nodes (LN). In one patient, only lymphadenectomy was performed since a FCH-positive LN was confirmed by histology. Four patients showed FCH-positive bone metastases, as proven by bone scan. FCH PET/CT scans at restaging correctly revealed local recurrence in 36 patients. No pathological FCH uptake was observed in 11 patients with biochemical recurrence. Twenty-three patients showed FCH-positive LN. Twenty LN were surgically removed in seven patients. Histopathology verified metastases in all LN, but revealed two additional metastastic, FCH-negative LN. Seventeen patients showed FCH-positive bone metastases, as proven by bone scan or MRI. Sensitivity to detect recurrent disease was 86%.

Conclusion: The results obtained using FCH PET/CT scans for initial N-staging were discouraging, especially in terms of its inability to detect small metastases. Recurrent disease can be localized reliably in patients with PSA levels of >2 microg/l.

Citing Articles

Tracing prostate cancer - the evolution of PET-CT applications.

Cholewinski W, Camoni L, Mocydlarz-Adamcewicz M, Pietrzak A Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2025; 29(5):627-637.

PMID: 39759560 PMC: 11698564. DOI: 10.5603/rpor.102615.

The Application of Radiomics and AI to Molecular Imaging for Prostate Cancer.

Tapper W, Carneiro G, Mikropoulos C, Thomas S, Evans P, Boussios S J Pers Med. 2024; 14(3).

PMID: 38541029 PMC: 10971024. DOI: 10.3390/jpm14030287.

Role of F-FCH PET/CT in Detecting Recurrences of Prostate Cancer After Curative Treatments.

Altini C, Niccoli Asabella A, Tramacere F, Sardaro A, Pisani A, Castelluccia A Mol Imaging Radionucl Ther. 2024; 33(1):1-10.

PMID: 38390705 PMC: 10899743. DOI: 10.4274/mirt.galenos.2023.26122.

Role of 18F-choline and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in combination with magnetic resonance imaging in brachytherapy planning for locally advanced cervical cancer: A pilot study.

Rais F, Boudam K, Menard C, Beauchemin M, Oulmoudne N, Juneau D Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2023; 27:100467.

PMID: 37497190 PMC: 10366634. DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2023.100467.

Value of Ga-labeled bombesin antagonist (RM2) in the detection of primary prostate cancer comparing with [F]fluoromethylcholine PET-CT and multiparametric MRI-a phase I/II study.

Beheshti M, Taimen P, Kemppainen J, Jambor I, Muller A, Loidl W Eur Radiol. 2022; 33(1):472-482.

PMID: 35864350 PMC: 9755087. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-08982-2.

References

Kotzerke J, Prang J, Neumaier B, Volkmer B, Guhlmann A, Kleinschmidt K . Experience with carbon-11 choline positron emission tomography in prostate carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med. 2000; 27(9):1415-9. DOI: 10.1007/s002590000309. View

Martorana G, Schiavina R, Corti B, Farsad M, Salizzoni E, Brunocilla E . 11C-choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for tumor localization of primary prostate cancer in comparison with 12-core biopsy. J Urol. 2006; 176(3):954-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.04.015. View

Heinisch M, Dirisamer A, Loidl W, Stoiber F, Gruy B, Haim S . Positron emission tomography/computed tomography with F-18-fluorocholine for restaging of prostate cancer patients: meaningful at PSA < 5 ng/ml?. Mol Imaging Biol. 2005; 8(1):43-8. DOI: 10.1007/s11307-005-0023-2. View

Pagliarulo V, Hawes D, Brands F, Groshen S, Cai J, Stein J . Detection of occult lymph node metastases in locally advanced node-negative prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24(18):2735-42. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.05.4767. View

Schumacher M, Burkhard F, Thalmann G, Fleischmann A, Studer U . Is pelvic lymph node dissection necessary in patients with a serum PSA<10ng/ml undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer?. Eur Urol. 2006; 50(2):272-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.01.061. View

DeGrado T, Coleman R, Wang S, Baldwin S, Orr M, Robertson C . Synthesis and evaluation of 18F-labeled choline as an oncologic tracer for positron emission tomography: initial findings in prostate cancer. Cancer Res. 2001; 61(1):110-7. View

Hacker A, Jeschke S, Leeb K, Prammer K, Ziegerhofer J, Sega W . Detection of pelvic lymph node metastases in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer: comparison of [18F]fluorocholine positron emission tomography-computerized tomography and laparoscopic radioisotope guided sentinel lymph node dissection. J Urol. 2006; 176(5):2014-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.07.037. View

Schmid D, John H, Zweifel R, Cservenyak T, Westera G, Goerres G . Fluorocholine PET/CT in patients with prostate cancer: initial experience. Radiology. 2005; 235(2):623-8. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2352040494. View

Freedland S, Sutter M, Dorey F, Aronson W . Defining the ideal cutpoint for determining PSA recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Prostate-specific antigen. Urology. 2003; 61(2):365-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(02)02268-9. View

10.

Hara T, Kosaka N, Kishi H . PET imaging of prostate cancer using carbon-11-choline. J Nucl Med. 1998; 39(6):990-5. View

11.

Hara T, Kosaka N, Kishi H . Development of (18)F-fluoroethylcholine for cancer imaging with PET: synthesis, biochemistry, and prostate cancer imaging. J Nucl Med. 2002; 43(2):187-99. View

12.

de Jong I, Pruim J, Elsinga P, Jongen M, Mensink H, Vaalburg W . Visualisation of bladder cancer using (11)C-choline PET: first clinical experience. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002; 29(10):1283-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-002-0881-7. View

13.

Poissonnier L, Chapelon J, Rouviere O, Curiel L, Bouvier R, Martin X . Control of prostate cancer by transrectal HIFU in 227 patients. Eur Urol. 2006; 51(2):381-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.04.012. View

14.

Joslyn S, Konety B . Impact of extent of lymphadenectomy on survival after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Urology. 2006; 68(1):121-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2006.01.055. View

15.

Sella T, Schwartz L, Swindle P, Onyebuchi C, Scardino P, Scher H . Suspected local recurrence after radical prostatectomy: endorectal coil MR imaging. Radiology. 2004; 231(2):379-85. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2312030011. View

16.

Harisinghani M, Barentsz J, Hahn P, Deserno W, Tabatabaei S, van de Kaa C . Noninvasive detection of clinically occult lymph-node metastases in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003; 348(25):2491-9. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa022749. View

17.

Reske S, Blumstein N, Neumaier B, Gottfried H, Finsterbusch F, Kocot D . Imaging prostate cancer with 11C-choline PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2006; 47(8):1249-54. View

18.

Jemal A, Murray T, Ward E, Samuels A, Tiwari R, Ghafoor A . Cancer statistics, 2005. CA Cancer J Clin. 2005; 55(1):10-30. DOI: 10.3322/canjclin.55.1.10. View

19.

Gambhir S, Czernin J, SCHWIMMER J, Silverman D, Coleman R, Phelps M . A tabulated summary of the FDG PET literature. J Nucl Med. 2001; 42(5 Suppl):1S-93S. View

20.

Aus G, Abbou C, Bolla M, Heidenreich A, Schmid H, van Poppel H . EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2005; 48(4):546-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.06.001. View