Technical Developments

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.

References

1 Landis SH, Murray T, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer statistics, 1999. CA Cancer J Clin 1999; 49:8-31. Crossref, Medline, Google 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. Crossref, Medline, Google 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. Crossref, Medline, Google 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. Crossref, Medline, Google 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. Crossref, Medline, Google 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. Crossref, Medline, Google 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. Crossref, Medline, Google 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. Crossref, Medline, Google 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. Crossref, Medline, Google 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. Crossref, Medline, Google 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. Medline, Google Scholar
12 Zeisel SH. Dietary choline: biochemistry, physiology, and pharmacology. Annu Rev Nutr 1981; 1:95-121. Crossref, Medline, Google 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. Medline, Google 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. Crossref, Medline, Google 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. Crossref, Medline, Google 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. Crossref, Medline, Google 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. Crossref, Medline, Google 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. Crossref, Medline, Google 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. Medline, Google 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. Link, 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. Crossref, Medline, Google 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. Medline, Google 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. Crossref, Medline, Google 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. Crossref, Medline, Google 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. Crossref, Medline, Google 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. Crossref, Medline, Google 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. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar

Article History

Published in print: May 2005

Vol. 235, No. 2

Metrics

Downloaded 1,850 times

Altmetric Score