Advertisement

Imaging evaluation of prostate cancer with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT: utility and limitations

  • Hossein JadvarEmail author
Review Article

Abstract

Prostate cancer is a major public health problem in developed countries. The remarkable biological and clinical heterogeneity of prostate cancer provides unique opportunities as well as challenges for the diagnostic imaging evaluation of this prevalent disease. The disease is characterized by a natural history that ranges from localized slowly growing hormone-dependent tumor progressing to metastatic hormone-refractory disease. PET is an ideal imaging tool for noninvasive interrogation of the underlying tumor biology. 18F-FDG is the most common PET radiotracer used for oncological applications based upon elevated glucose metabolism in malignant tissue in comparison to normal tissue. FDG uptake in prostate cancer depends on tumor differentiation with low accumulation in well-differentiated tumors and high uptake in aggressive poorly differentiated tumors. Cumulative current evidence suggests that FDG PET may be useful in detection of disease in a small fraction of patients with biochemical recurrence, in the imaging evaluation of extent and treatment response in metastatic disease and in prediction of patient outcome.

Keywords

Prostate Cancer FDG PET 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by the US National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute (grants R01-CA111613 and R21-CA142426).

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results. National Cancer Institute. Stat fact sheets: prostate. Available from: http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html.
  2. 2.
    Center MM, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulent J, Ward E, Ferlay J, Brawley O, et al. International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol. 2012;61:1079–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kessler B, Albertsen P. The natural history of prostate cancer. Urol Clin N Am. 2003;30:219–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carroll P. Rising PSA, after a radical treatment. Eur Urol. 2001;40:9–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fox JJ, Morris MJ, Larson SM, Schoder H, Scher HI. Developing imaging strategies for castration resistant prostate cancer. Acta Oncol. 2011;50 Suppl 1:39–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Marques RB, Erkens-Schulze S, de Ridder CM, Hermans KG, Waltering K, Visakorpi T, et al. Androgen receptor modifications in prostate cancer cells upon long-term androgen ablation and antiandrogen treatment. Int J Cancer. 2005;117:221–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Scher HI, Halabi S, Tannock I, Morris M, Sternberg CN, Carducci MA, et al. Design and end points of clinical trials for patients with progressive prostate cancer and castrate levels of testosterone: recommendations of the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1148–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Apolo AB, Pandit-Taskar N, Morris MJ. Novel tracers and their development for the imaging of metastatic prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:2031–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jadvar H. Molecular imaging of prostate cancer: PET radiotracers. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199:278–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Macheda ML, Rogers S, Bets JD. Molecular and cellular regulation of glucose transport (GLUT) proteins in cancer. J Cell Physiol. 2005;202:654–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smith TA. Mammalian hexokinases and their abnormal expression in cancer. Br J Biomed Sci. 2000;57:170–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Effert P, Beniers AJ, Tamimi Y, Handt S, Jakse G. Expression of glucose transporter 1 (GLUT-1) in cell lines and clinical specimen from human prostate adenocarcinoma. Anticancer Res. 2004;24:3057–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stewardt GD, Gray K, Pennington CJ, Edwards DR, Riddick AC, Ross JA, et al. Analysis of hypoxia-associated gene expression in prostate cancer: lysyl oxidase and glucose transporter 1 expression correlate with Gleason score. Oncol Rep. 2008;20:1561–7.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jadvar H, Li X, Shahinian A, Park R, Tohme M, Pinski J, et al. Glucose metabolism of human prostate cancer mouse xenografts. Mol Imaging. 2005;4:91–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Emonds KM, Swinnen JV, van Weerden WM, Vanderhoydonc F, Nuyts J, Mortelmans L, et al. Do androgens control the uptake of 18F-FDG, 11C-choline and 11C-acetate in human prostate cancer cell lines? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1842–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clavo AC, Brown RS, Wahl RL. Fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in human cancer cell lines is increased by hypoxia. J Nucl Med. 1995;36:1625–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moon JS, Jin WJ, Kwak JH, Kim HJ, Yun MJ, Kim JW, et al. Androgen stimulates glycolysis for de novo lipid synthesis by increasing activities of hexokinase 2 and 6-phosphofructo-2-kinase/fructose-2,6-biphosphatase 2 in prostate cancer cells. Biochem J. 2011;433:225–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kukuk D, Reischl G, Raguin O, Wiehr S, Judenhofer MS, Calaminus C, et al. Assessment of PET tracer uptake in hormone-independent and hormone-dependent xenograft prostate cancer mouse models. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1654–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Salminen E, Hogg A, Binns D, Frydenberg M, Hicks R. Investigations with FDG PET scanning in prostate cancer show limited value for clinical practice. Acta Oncol. 2002;41:425–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jadvar H. Molecular imaging of prostate cancer with [F-18]-fluorodeoxyglucose PET. Nat Rev Urol. 2009;6:317–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jadvar H, Ye W, Groshen S, Conti PS. [F-18]-fluorodeoxyglucose PET-CT of the normal prostate gland. Ann Nucl Med. 2008;22:787–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Minamimoto R, Uemura H, Sano F, Terao H, Nagashima Y, Yamanaka S, et al. The potential of FDG PET/CT for detecting prostate cancer in patients with an elevated serum PSA level. Ann Nucl Med. 2011;25:21–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Minamimoto R, Senda M, Jinnouchi S, Terauchi T, Yoshida T, Murano T, et al. The current status of an FDG-PET cancer screening program in Japan based on a 4-year (2006–2009) nationwide survey. Ann Nucl Med. 2013;27:46–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Watanabe H, Kanematsu M, Kondo H, Kako N, Yamamoto N, Yamada T, et al. Preoperative detection of prostate cancer: a comparison with 11C-choline PET, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET, and MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;31:1151–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hwang I, Chong A, Jung SI, Hwang EC, Kim SO, Kang TW, et al. Is further evaluation needed for incidental focal uptake in the prostate in 18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography images? Ann Nucl Med. 2012. doi: 10.1007/s12149-012-0663-7.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Shields AF, Liu D, Gareen IF, Hunt E, et al. Relationship between cancer type and impact of PET and PET/CT on intended management: findings of the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1928–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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;57:108–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kao PF, Chou YH, Lai CW. Diffuse FDG uptake in acute prostatitis. Clin Nucl Med. 2008;33:308–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Oyama N, Akino H, Suzuki Y, Kanamaru H, Sadato N, Yonekura Y, et al. The increased accumulation of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose in untreated prostate cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 1999;29:623–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cookson MS, Aus G, Burnett AL, Canby-Hagino ED, D’Amico AV, Dmochowski RR, et al. Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American Urological Association prostate guidelines for localized prostate cancer update panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes. J Urol. 2007;177:540–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Roach III M, Hanks G, Thames Jr H, Schellhammer P, Shipley WU, Sokol GH, et al. Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix consensus conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65:965–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Picchio M, Briganti A, Fanti S, Heidenreich A, Krause BJ, Messa C, et al. The role of choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the management of patients with prostate-specific antigen progression after radical treatment of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol. 2011;59:51–60.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chang CH, Wu HC, Tsai JJ, Shen YY, Changlai SP, Kao A. Detecting metastatic pelvic lymph nodes by (18)F-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with prostate-specific antigen relapse after treatment for localized prostate cancer. Urol Int. 2003;70:311–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schöder H, Herrmann K, Gönen M, Hricak H, Eberhard S, Scardino P, et al. 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography for detection of disease in patients with prostate-specific antigen relapse after radical prostatectomy. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11:4761–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    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
  36. 36.
    Jadvar H, Desai B, Ji L, Conti PS. Prospective evaluation of 18F-NaF and 18F-FDG PET/CT in detection of occult metastatic disease in biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. Clin Nucl Med. 2012;37:637–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Oyama N, Akino H, Suzuki Y, Kanamaru H, Ishida H, Tanase K, et al. FDG PET for evaluating the change of glucose metabolism in prostate cancer after androgen ablation. Nucl Med Commun. 2001;22:963–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Haberkorn U, Bellemann ME, Altmann A, Gerlach L, Morr I, Oberdorfer F, et al. PET 2-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose uptake in rat prostate adenocarcinoma during chemotherapy with gemcitabine. J Nucl Med. 1997;38:1215–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jadvar H, Desai B, Quinn D, Dorff T, Pinski J, Conti P, et al. Treatment response assessment of metastatic prostate cancer with FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2011;52 Suppl 1:1908.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bubley GJ, Carducci M, Dahut W, Dawson N, Daliani D, Eisenberger M, et al. Eligibility and response guidelines for phase II clinical trials in androgen-independent prostate cancer: recommendations from the PSA Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1–7.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Oyama N, Akino H, Suzuki Y, Kanamaru H, Miwa Y, Tsuka H, et al. Prognostic value of 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography imaging for patients with prostate cancer. Mol Imaging Biol. 2002;4:99–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Morris MJ, Akhurst T, Larson SM, Ditullio M, Chu E, Siedlecki K, et al. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography as an outcome measure for castrate metastatic prostate cancer treated with antimicrotubule chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11:3210–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Meirelles GS, Schoder H, Ravizzini GC, Gönen M, Fox JJ, Humm J, et al. Prognostic value of baseline [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and 99mTc-MDP bone scan in progressing prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:6093–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Imbriaco M, Larson SM, Yeung HW, Mawlawi OR, Erdi Y, Venkatraman ES, et al. A new parameter for measuring metastatic bone involvement by prostate cancer: the bone scan index. Clin Cancer Res. 1998;4:1765–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jadvar H, Desai B, Ji L, Conti P, Dorff T, Pinski J, et al. Prognostic utility of FDG PET/CT in men with castrate-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2012;53 Suppl 1:116.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Keck School of MedicineUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations