Advertisement

18F-FACBC (anti1-amino-3-18F-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid) versus 11C-choline PET/CT in prostate cancer relapse: results of a prospective trial

  • Cristina Nanni
  • Lucia Zanoni
  • Cristian Pultrone
  • Riccardo Schiavina
  • Eugenio Brunocilla
  • Filippo Lodi
  • Claudio Malizia
  • Matteo Ferrari
  • Patrizio Rigatti
  • Cristina Fonti
  • Giuseppe Martorana
  • Stefano Fanti
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the accuracy of 18F-FACBC and 11C-choline PET/CT in patients radically treated for prostate cancer presenting with biochemical relapse.

Methods

This prospective study enrolled 100 consecutive patients radically treated for prostate cancer and presenting with rising PSA. Of these 100 patients, 89 were included in the analysis. All had biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy (at least 3 months previously), had 11C-choline and 18F-FACBC PET/CT performed within 1 week and were off hormonal therapy at the time of the scans. The two tracers were compared directly in terms of overall positivity/negativity on both a per-patient basis and a per-site basis. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy were calculated for both the tracers; follow-up at 1 year (including correlative imaging, PSA trend and pathology when available) was considered as the standard of reference.

Results

In 51 patients the results were negative and in 25 patients positive with both the tracers, in eight patients the results were positive with 18F-FACBC but negative with 11C-choline, and in five patients the results were positive with 11C-choline but negative with 18F-FACBC. Overall in 49 patients the results were false-negative (FN), in two true-negative, in 24 true-positive (TP) and in none false-positive (FP) with both tracers. In terms of discordances between the tracers: (1) in one patient, the result was FN with 11C-choline but FP with 18F-FACBC (lymph node), (2) in seven, FN with 11C-choline but TP with 18F-FACBC (lymph node in five, bone in one, local relapse in one), (3) in one, FP with 11C-choline (lymph node) but TP with 18F-FACBC (local relapse), (4) in two, FP with 11C-choline (lymph nodes in one, local relapse in one) but FN with 18F-FACBC, and (5) in three, TP with 11C-choline (lymph nodes in two, bone in one) but FN with 18F-FACBC. With 11C-choline and 18F-FACBC, sensitivities were 32 % and 37 %, specificities 40 % and 67 %, accuracies 32 % and 38 %, PPVs 90 % and 97 %, and NPVs 3 % and 4 %, respectively. Categorizing patients by PSA level (<1 ng/ml 28 patients, 1 – <2 ng/ml 28 patients, 2 – <3 ng/ml 11 patients, ≥3 ng/ml 22 patients), the number (percent) of patients with TP findings were generally higher with 18F-FACBC than with 11C-choline: six patients (21 %) and four patients (14 %), eight patients (29 %) and eight patients (29 %), five patients (45 %) and four patients (36 %), and 13 patients (59 %) and 11 patients (50 %), respectively.

Conclusion

18F-FACBC can be considered an alternative tracer superior to 11C-choline in the setting of patients with biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy.

Keywords

Anti-3-18F-FACBC Fluciclovine 11C-Choline PET/CT Prostate cancer PSA 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

The project received a grant from “Programma di ricerca Regione-Università 2010-2012 della Regione Emilia Romagna – Bando giovani Ricercatori”.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the principles of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This Italian monocentric prospective protocol was approved by the Ethical Committee of S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital.

Informed consent

All the enrolled patients signed specific informed consent.

References

  1. 1.
    Pfitzenmaier J, Pahernik S, Tremmel T, Haferkamp A, Buse S, Hohenfellner M. Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: do they have an impact on biochemical or clinical progression? BJU Int. 2008;102:1413–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rouvière O. Imaging techniques for local recurrence of prostate cancer: for whom, why and how? Diagn Interv Imaging. 2012;93(4):279–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Krause BJ, Souvatzoglou M, Tuncel M, Herrmann K, Buck AK, Praus C, et al. The detection rate of [11C]choline-PET/CT depends on the serum PSA-value in patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35(1):18–23.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Oka S, Okudaira H, Yoshida Y, Schuster DM, Goodman MM, Shirakami Y. Transport mechanisms of trans-1-amino-3-fluoro[1-(14)C]cyclobutanecarboxylic acid in prostate cancer cells. Nucl Med Biol. 2012;39(1):109–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schuster DM, Votaw JR, Nieh PT, Yu W, Nye JA, Master V, et al. Initial experience with the radiotracer anti-1-amino-3-18F-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid with PET/CT in prostate carcinoma. J Nucl Med. 2007;48(1):56–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sörensen J, Owenius R, Lax M, Johansson S. Regional distribution and kinetics of [18F]fluciclovine (anti-[18F]FACBC), a tracer of amino acid transport, in subjects with primary prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(3):394–402.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schuster DM, Savir-Baruch B, Nieh P, Master VA, Halkar RK, Rossi PJ, et al. Detection of recurrent prostate carcinoma with anti-3-18F-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid PET/CT and 111In-capromab pendetide SPECT/CT. Radiology. 2011;259:852–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nanni C, Schiavina R, Boschi S, Ambrosini V, Pettinato C, Brunocilla E, et al. Comparison of 18F-FACBC and 11C-choline PET/CT in patients with radically treated prostate cancer and biochemical relapse: preliminary results. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40 Suppl 1:S11–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nanni C, Schiavina R, Brunocilla E, Borghesi M, Ambrosini V, Zanoni L, et al. 18F-FACBC compared with 11C-choline PET/CT in patients with biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy: a prospective study in 28 patients. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2014;12(2):106–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nanni C, Schiavina R, Brunocilla E, Boschi S, Borghesi M, Zanoni L, et al. 18F-Fluciclovine PET/CT for the detection of prostate cancer relapse: a comparison to 11C-choline PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med. 2015;40(8):e386–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McConathy J, Voll RJ, Yu W, Crowe RJ, Goodman MM. Improved synthesis of anti- [ 18 F]FACBC: improved preparation of labeling precursor and automated radiosynthesis. Appl Radiat Isot. 2003;58(6):657–66.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pascali C, Bogni A, Itawa R, Cambiè M, Bombardieri E. [11C] Methylation on a C18 Sep-Pak cartridge: a convenient way to produce [N-methyl-11C]choline. J Labelled Comp Radiopharm. 2000;43(2):195–203.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Iatrou M, Ross SG, Manjeshwar RM, Stearns CW. A fully 3D iterative image reconstruction algorithm incorporating data corrections. Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, 2004 IEEE, vol 4, p. 2493–97. doi: 10.1109/NSSMIC.2004.1462761
  14. 14.
    Choueiri TK, Dreicer R, Paciorek A, Carroll PR, Konety B. A model that predicts the probability of positive imaging in prostate cancer cases with biochemical failure after initial definitive local therapy. J Urol. 2008;179(3):906–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schuster DM, Nanni C, Fanti S, Oka S, Okudaira H, Inoue Y, et al. Anti-1-amino-3-18F-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid: physiologic uptake patterns, incidental findings, and variants that may simulate disease. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(12):1986–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristina Nanni
    • 1
  • Lucia Zanoni
    • 1
  • Cristian Pultrone
    • 2
  • Riccardo Schiavina
    • 2
  • Eugenio Brunocilla
    • 2
  • Filippo Lodi
    • 1
  • Claudio Malizia
    • 1
  • Matteo Ferrari
    • 3
  • Patrizio Rigatti
    • 3
  • Cristina Fonti
    • 1
  • Giuseppe Martorana
    • 2
  • Stefano Fanti
    • 1
  1. 1.Nuclear MedicineAOU Policlinico S.Orsola-MalpighiBolognaItaly
  2. 2.UrologyAOU Policlinico S.Orsola-MalpighiBolognaItaly
  3. 3.Urology, Centro Avanzato di Urotecnologie, Istituto Auxologico Italiano Presidio Ospedaliero CapitanioMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations