Advertisement

Value of 11C-choline PET and PET/CT in patients with suspected prostate cancer

  • Bernhard Scher
  • Michael Seitz
  • Wolfram Albinger
  • Reinhold Tiling
  • Michael Scherr
  • Hans-Christoph Becker
  • Michael Souvatzogluou
  • Franz-Josef Gildehaus
  • Hans-Jürgen Wester
  • Stefan Dresel
Original article

Abstract

Purpose:

The value and limitations of 11C-choline PET and PET/CT for the detection of prostate cancer remain controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic efficacy of 11C-choline PET and PET/CT in a large group of patients with suspected prostate cancer.

Methods:

Fifty-eight patients with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer underwent 11C-choline PET (25/58, Siemens ECAT Exact HR+) or PET/CT (33/58, Philips Gemini) scanning. On average, 500 MBq of 11C-choline was administered intravenously. Studies were interpreted by raters blinded to clinical information and other diagnostic procedures. Qualitative image analysis as well as semiquantitative SUV measurement was carried out. The reference standard was histopathological examination of resection specimens or biopsy.

Results:

Prevalence of prostate cancer in this selected patient population was 63.8% (37/58). 11C-choline PET and PET/CT showed a sensitivity of 86.5% (32/37) and a specificity of 61.9% (13/21) in the detection of the primary malignancy. With regard to metastatic spread, PET showed a per-patient sensitivity of 81.8% (9/11) and produced no false positive findings.

Conclusion:

Based on our findings, differentiation between benign prostatic changes, such as benign prostatic hyperplasia or prostatitis, and prostate cancer is feasible in the majority of cases when image interpretation is primarily based on qualitative characteristics. SUVmax may serve as guidance. False positive findings may occur due to an overlap of 11C-choline uptake between benign and malignant processes. By providing functional information regarding both the primary malignancy and its metastases, 11C-choline PET may prove to be a useful method for staging prostate cancer.

Keywords

PET PET/CT 11C-choline Prostate cancer Tumour metabolism 

References

  1. 1.
    Sarma AV, Schottenfeld D. Prostate cancer incidence, mortality, and survival trends in the United States: 1981–2001. Semin Urol Oncol 2002;20:3–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wefer AE, Hricak H, Vigneron DB, Coakley FV, Lu Y, Wefer J, et al. Sextant localization of prostate cancer: comparison of sextant biopsy, magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging with step section histology. J Urol 2000;164:400–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wittekind C, Klimpfinger M, Sobin LH. TNM atlas. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer; 2004; p. 275–82.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Agus DB, Golde DW, Sgouros G, Ballangrud A, Cordon-Cardo C, Scher HI. Positron emission tomography of a human prostate cancer xenograft: association of changes in deoxyglucose accumulation with other measures of outcome following androgen withdrawal. Cancer Res 1998;58:3009–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Seltzer MA, Barbaric Z, Belldegrun A, Naitoh J, Dorey F, Phelps ME, et al. Comparison of helical computerized tomography, positron emission tomography and monoclonal antibody scans for evaluation of lymph node metastases in patients with prostate specific antigen relapse after treatment for localized prostate cancer. J Urol 1999;162:1322–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Oyama N, Akino H, Kanamaru H, Suzuki Y, Muramoto S, Yonekura Y, et al. 11C-acetate PET imaging of prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 2002;43:181–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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;155:994–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hara T, Kosaka N, Kishi H. PET imaging of prostate cancer using carbon-11-choline. J Nucl Med 1998;39:990–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Larson SM, Morris M, Gunther I, Beattie B, Humm JL, Akhurst TA, et al. Tumor localization of 16beta-18F-fluoro-5alpha-dihydrotestosterone versus 18F-FDG in patients with progressive, metastatic prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 2004;45:366–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Toth G, Lengyel Z, Balkay L, Salah MA, Tron L, Toth C. Detection of prostate cancer with 11C-methionine positron emission tomography. J Urol 2005;173:66–9; discussion 69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yoshimoto M, Waki A, Yonekura Y, Sadato N, Murata T, Omata N, et al. Characterization of acetate metabolism in tumor cells in relation to cell proliferation: acetate metabolism in tumor cells. Nucl Med Biol 2001;28:117–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Swinnen JV, Van Veldhoven PP, Timmermans L, De Schrijver E, Brusselmans K, Vanderhoydonc F, et al. Fatty acid synthase drives the synthesis of phospholipids partitioning into detergent-resistant membrane microdomains. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2003;302:898–903.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kotzerke J, Volkmer BG, Neumaier B, Gschwend JE, Hautmann RE, Reske SN. Carbon-11 acetate positron emission tomography can detect local recurrence of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002;29:1380–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ackerstaff E, Pflug BR, Nelson JB, Bhujwalla ZM. Detection of increased choline compounds with proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy subsequent to malignant transformation of human prostatic epithelial cells. Cancer Res 2001;61:3599–603.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Breeuwsma AJ, Pruim J, Jongen MM, Suurmeijer AJ, Vaalburg W, Nijman RJ, et al. In vivo uptake of [11C]choline does not correlate with cell proliferation in human prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32:668–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yoshida S, Nakagomi K, Goto S, Futatsubashi M, Torizuka T. C-choline positron emission tomography in prostate cancer: primary staging and recurrent site staging. Urol Int 2005;74:214–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Farsad M, Schiavina R, Castellucci P, Nanni C, Corti B, Martorana G, et al. Detection and localization of prostate cancer: correlation of 11C-choline PET/CT with histopathologic step-section analysis. J Nucl Med 2005;46:1642–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    de Jong IJ, Pruim J, Elsinga PH, Vaalburg W, Mensink HJ. Visualization of prostate cancer with 11C-choline positron emission tomography. Eur Urol 2002;42:18–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    de Jong IJ, Pruim J, Elsinga PH, Vaalburg W, Mensink HJ. Preoperative staging of pelvic lymph nodes in prostate cancer by 11C-choline PET. J Nucl Med 2003;44:331–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Amsellem-Ouazana D, Younes P, Conquy S, Peyromaure M, Flam T, Debre B, et al. Negative prostatic biopsies in patients with a high risk of prostate cancer. Is the combination of endorectal MRI and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging (MRSI) a useful tool? A preliminary study. Eur Urol 2005;47:582–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yu KK, Scheidler J, Hricak H, Vigneron DB, Zaloudek CJ, Males RG, et al. Prostate cancer: prediction of extracapsular extension with endorectal MR imaging and three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 1999;213:481–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    van Dorsten FA, van der Graaf M, Engelbrecht MR, van Leenders GJ, Verhofstad A, Rijpkema M, et al. Combined quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and 1H MR spectroscopic imaging of human prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004;20:279–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yamaguchi T, Lee J, Uemura H, Sasaki T, Takahashi N, Oka T, et al. Prostate cancer: a comparative study of 11C-choline PET and MR imaging combined with proton MR spectroscopy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32:742–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Qayyum A, Coakley FV, Lu Y, Olpin JD, Wu L, Yeh BM, et al. Organ-confined prostate cancer: effect of prior transrectal biopsy on endorectal MRI and MR spectroscopic imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:1079–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron DB, Hricak H, Parivar F, Nelson SJ, Shinohara K, et al. Prostate cancer: metabolic response to cryosurgery as detected with 3D H-1 MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 1996;200:489–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Heuck A, Scheidler J, Sommer B, Graser A, Muller-Lisse UG, Massmann J. MR imaging of prostate cancer [in German]. Radiologe 2003;43:464–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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;12:2294–302.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sutinen E, Nurmi M, Roivainen A, Varpula M, Tolvanen T, Lehikoinen P, et al. Kinetics of [11C]choline uptake in prostate cancer: a PET study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31:317–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernhard Scher
    • 1
  • Michael Seitz
    • 2
  • Wolfram Albinger
    • 1
  • Reinhold Tiling
    • 1
  • Michael Scherr
    • 3
  • Hans-Christoph Becker
    • 3
  • Michael Souvatzogluou
    • 4
  • Franz-Josef Gildehaus
    • 1
  • Hans-Jürgen Wester
    • 4
  • Stefan Dresel
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineUniversity of MunichMunichGermany
  2. 2.Department of UrologyUniversity of MunichMunichGermany
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyUniversity of MunichMunichGermany
  4. 4.Department of Nuclear MedicineTechnical University of MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations