"skipMainNavigation"
Search
Quick Search in Journals
Quick Search anywhere
Advanced Search
Radiology
Menu
Previous
Next
Technical Developments

Fluorocholine PET/CT in Patients with Prostate Cancer: Initial Experience

Published Online:May 1 2005https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2352040494

Abstract

Institutional review board approval and written informed consent were obtained. Patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer and patients suspected of having recurrent prostate cancer were prospectively evaluated with fluorine 18 fluorocholine (FCH) combined in-line positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT). In 19 patients (mean age, 67 years ± 8; range, 57–85 years), standardized uptake values of FCH in 17 different tissues were determined by using volumes of interest. In nine patients evaluated at initial staging, histologic findings of the resected prostate were compared to FCH uptake. Only small variations of physiologic tracer accumulation were measured in all organs but the kidneys. Differentiation of benign hyperplasia from cancerous prostate lesions was not possible with FCH PET/CT. However, in patients with recurrent prostate cancer, FCH PET/CT is a promising imaging modality for detecting local recurrence and lymph node metastases.

© RSNA, 2005

References

  • 1 Landis SH, Murray T, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer statistics, 1999. CA Cancer J Clin 1999; 49:8-31.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Stephenson RA, Stanford JL. Population-based prostate cancer trends in the United States: patterns of change in the era of prostate-specific antigen. World J Urol 1997; 15:331-335.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hanks GE, Krall JM, Pilepich MV, et al. Comparison of pathologic and clinical evaluation of lymph nodes in prostate cancer: implications of RTOG data for patient management and trial design and stratification. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1992; 23:293-298.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Tiguert R, Gheiler EL, Tefilli MV, et al. Lymph node size does not correlate with the presence of prostate cancer metastasis. Urology 1999; 53:367-371.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Effert PJ, Bares R, Handt S, Wolff JM, Bull U, Jakse G. Metabolic imaging of untreated prostate cancer by positron emission tomography with 18fluorine-labeled deoxyglucose. J Urol 1996; 155:994-998.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hofer C, Laubenbacher C, Block T, Breul J, Hartung R, Schwaiger M. Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography is useless for the detection of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 1999; 36:31-35.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Liu IJ, Zafar MB, Lai YH, Segall GM, Terris MK. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography studies in diagnosis and staging of clinically organ-confined prostate cancer. Urology 2001; 57:108-111.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Sutinen E, Nurmi M, Roivainen A, et al. Kinetics of [(11)C]choline uptake in prostate cancer: a PET study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004; 31:317-324.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Picchio M, Messa C, Landoni C, et al. Value of [11C]choline-positron emission tomography for re-staging prostate cancer: a comparison with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography. J Urol 2003; 169:1337-1340.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Utriainen M, Komu M, Vuorinen V, et al. Evaluation of brain tumor metabolism with [11C]choline PET and 1H-MRS. J Neurooncol 2003; 62:329-338.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Torizuka T, Kanno T, Futatsubashi M, et al. Imaging of gynecologic tumors: comparison of (11)C-Choline PET with (18)F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 2003; 44:1051-1056.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Zeisel SH. Dietary choline: biochemistry, physiology, and pharmacology. Annu Rev Nutr 1981; 1:95-121.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 DeGrado TR, Baldwin SW, Wang S, et al. Synthesis and evaluation of (18)F-labeled choline analogs as oncologic PET tracers. J Nucl Med 2001; 42:1805-1814.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Cservenyak T, Drandarov K, Schubiger PA, Westera G. Automated production of [18F]fluorocholine of pharmaceutical quality (suppl). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30:S313.
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Bergman J, Eskola O, Lehikoinen P, Solin O. Automated synthesis and purification of [18F]bromofluoromethane at high specific radioactivity. Appl Radiat Isot 2001; 54:927-933.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Vassiliev D, Krasikova R, Kuznetsova O, Fedorova O, Nader M. Simple HPLC method for the detection of N,N-dimethylaminoethanol in the preparation of [N-methyl-11C]choline (suppl). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30:S311.
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Burger C, Goerres G, Schoenes S, Buck A, Lonn AH, Von Schulthess GK. PET attenuation coefficients from CT images: experimental evaluation of the transformation of CT into PET 511-keV attenuation coefficients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002; 29:922-927.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Goerres GW, Kamel E, Heidelberg TN, Schwitter MR, Burger C, von Schulthess GK. PET-CT image co-registration in the thorax: influence of respiration. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002; 29:351-360.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Jebb SA, Cole TJ, Doman D, Murgatroyd PR, Prentice AM. Evaluation of the novel Tanita body-fat analyser to measure body composition by comparison with a four-compartment model. Br J Nutr 2000; 83:115-122.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Lazzer S, Boirie Y, Meyer M, Vermorel M. Evaluation of two foot-to-foot bioelectrical impedance analysers to assess body composition in overweight and obese adolescents. Br J Nutr 2003; 90:987-992.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Cable A, Nieman DC, Austin M, Hogen E, Utter AC. Validity of leg-to-leg bioelectrical impedance measurement in males. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2001; 41:411-414.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Zasadny KR, Wahl RL. Standardized uptake values of normal tissues at PET with 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose: variations with body weight and a method for correction. Radiology 1993; 189:847-850.
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Freedland SJ, Sutter ME, Dorey F, Aronson WJ. Defining the ideal cutpoint for determining PSA recurrence after radical prostatectomy: prostate-specific antigen. Urology 2003; 61:365-369.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Fowler JE, Jr, Pandey P, Braswell NT, Seaver L. Prostate specific antigen progression rates after radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Surgery 1994; 116:302-305.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Duchesne GM, Millar JL, Moraga V, Rosenthal M, Royce P, Snow R. What to do for prostate cancer patients with a rising PSA? a survey of Australian practice. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 55:986-991.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Cher ML, Bianco FJ, Jr, Lam JS, et al. Limited role of radionuclide bone scintigraphy in patients with prostate specific antigen elevations after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1998; 160:1387-1391.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 27 de Jong IJ, Pruim J, Elsinga PH, Vaalburg W, Mensink HJ. 11C-choline positron emission tomography for the evaluation after treatment of localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2003; 44:32-38.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Engelbrecht MR, Jager GJ, Laheij RJ, Verbeek AL, van Lier HJ, Barentsz JO. Local staging of prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2002; 12:2294-2302.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Wyss MT, Weber B, Honer M, et al. 18F-choline in experimental soft tissue infection assessed with autoradiography and high-resolution PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004; 31:312-316.
    MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Published in print: May 2005