Original Article

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 13-26

First online:

[11C]Choline PET/CT detection of bone metastases in patients with PSA progression after primary treatment for prostate cancer: comparison with bone scintigraphy

  • Maria PicchioAffiliated withNuclear Medicine Department, San Raffaele Scientific InstituteInstitute for Bioimaging and Molecular Physiology, National Research Council (IBFM-CNR) Email author 
  • , Elena Giulia SpinapoliceAffiliated withCenter for Molecular Bioimaging, University of Milano-Bicocca
  • , Federico FallancaAffiliated withNuclear Medicine Department, San Raffaele Scientific Institute
  • , Cinzia CrivellaroAffiliated withCenter for Molecular Bioimaging, University of Milano-Bicocca
  • , Giampiero GiovacchiniAffiliated withCenter for Molecular Bioimaging, University of Milano-BicoccaInstitute of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Basel
  • , Luigi GianolliAffiliated withNuclear Medicine Department, San Raffaele Scientific Institute
  • , Cristina MessaAffiliated withInstitute for Bioimaging and Molecular Physiology, National Research Council (IBFM-CNR)Center for Molecular Bioimaging, University of Milano-BicoccaDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, San Gerardo Hospital

Rent the article at a discount

Rent now

* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.

Get Access

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical usefulness of [11C]choline positron emission tomography (PET)/CT in comparison with bone scintigraphy (BS) in detecting bone metastases (BM) of patients with biochemical progression after radical treatment for prostate cancer (PCa).

Methods

Seventy-eight consecutive patients with biochemical progression of PCa (mean prostate-specific antigen 21.1 ng/ml, range 0.2–500.0 ng/ml) referred for both [11C]choline PET/CT and BS for restaging purposes were retrospectively analysed. The diagnostic accuracy of [11C]choline PET/CT and BS was assessed by using morphological imaging and/or follow-up as standards of reference. As equivocal findings were found, the accuracy analysis was performed twice, once including them as positive and once as negative. A separate analysis was also performed in hormone-resistant patients and data compared with those of patients who did not receive anti-androgenic treatment.

Results

Equivocal findings occurred in 1 of 78 (1%) cases in [11C]choline PET/CT and in 21 of 78 (27%) cases in BS. Depending on their attribution as either positive or negative, the ranges of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy for [11C]choline PET/CT were 89–89%, 98–100%, 96–100%, 94–96% and 95–96%, respectively. For BS they were 100–70%, 75–100%, 68-–100%, 100–86% and 83–90%, respectively. Concordant findings between [11C]choline PET/CT and BS occurred in 55 of 78 (71%) cases. The accuracy of [11C]choline PET/CT did not significantly (p = 0.30) differ between hormone-resistant patients (97%) and those who did not receive anti-androgenic treatment (95%).

Conclusion

In clinical practice, [11C]choline PET/CT may not replace BS because of its lower sensitivity. However, for its high specificity, [11C]choline PET/CT positive findings may accurately predict the presence of BM. Equivocal findings are more frequent in BS than [11C]choline PET/CT.

Keywords

[11C]Choline Positron emission tomography PET/CT Bone scintigraphy Prostate cancer recurrence Bone metastases