Advertisement

Good clinical practice recommendations for the use of PET/CT in oncology

  • Pierre-Yves SalaünEmail author
  • Ronan Abgral
  • Olivier Malard
  • Solène Querellou-Lefranc
  • Gilles Quere
  • Myriam Wartski
  • Romain Coriat
  • Elif Hindie
  • David Taieb
  • Antoine Tabarin
  • Antoine Girard
  • Jean-François Grellier
  • Isabelle Brenot-Rossi
  • David Groheux
  • Caroline Rousseau
  • Désirée Deandreis
  • Jean-Louis Alberini
  • Caroline Bodet-Milin
  • Emmanuel Itti
  • Olivier Casasnovas
  • Françoise Kraeber-Bodere
  • Philippe Moreau
  • Arnaud Philip
  • Corinne Balleyguier
  • Alain Luciani
  • Florent Cachin
Guidelines
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Oncology – General

Abstract

Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is a nuclear medicine functional imaging technique with proven clinical value in oncology. PET/CT indications are continually evolving with fresh advances made through research. French practice on the use of PET in oncology was framed in recommendations based on Standards–Options–Recommendations methodology and coordinated by the French federation of Comprehensive Cancer Centres (FNLCC). The recommendations were originally issued in 2002 followed by an update in 2003, but since then, a huge number of scientific papers have been published and new tracers have been licenced for market release. The aim of this work is to bring the 2003 version recommendations up to date. For this purpose, a focus group was set up in collaboration with the French Society for Nuclear Medicine (SFMN) to work on developing good clinical practice recommendations. These good clinical practice recommendations have been awarded joint French National Heath Authority (HAS) and French Cancer Institute (INCa) label status—the stamp of methodological approval. The present document is the outcome of comprehensive literature review and rigorous appraisal by a panel of experts, organ specialists, clinical oncologists, surgeons and imaging specialists. These data were also used for the EANM referral guidelines.

Keywords

Positron emission tomography Computed tomography Methodological approval 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Reviewers

The list of reviewers is available in the thesaurus.

INCa and HAS project managers

MOROIS Sophie, Project manager in the Good Practices Department, INCa

DUPERRAY Marianne, Head of the Good Practices Department, INCa

DAHAN Muriel, Director of the Recommendations and Drugs Department, INCa

VERMEL Christine, Responsible for the quality mission and conformity of the expertise, INCa

LAURENCE Michel, Head of the Good Professional Practice Department, HAS

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. 1.
    Maurer T, Gschwend JE, Rauscher I, Souvatzoglou M, Haller B, Weirich G, et al. Diagnostic efficacy of (68)Gallium-PSMA positron emission tomography compared to conventional imaging for lymph node staging of 130 consecutive patients with intermediate to high risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2016;195(5):1436–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    von Eyben FE, Picchio M, von Eyben R, Rhee H, Bauman G. (68)Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand positron emission tomography/computed tomography for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4(5):686–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bauman G, Martin P, Thiessen JD, Taylor R, Moussa M, Gaed M, et al. [(18)F]-DCFPyL positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging for localization of dominant intraprostatic foci: first experience. Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4(5):702–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Giesel FL, Hadaschik B, Cardinale J, Radtke J, Vinsensia M, Lehnert W, et al. F-18 labelled PSMA-1007: biodistribution, radiation dosimetry and histopathological validation of tumor lesions in prostate cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(4):678–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Udovicich C, Perera M, Hofman MS, Siva S, Del Rio A, Murphy DG, et al. (68)Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in advanced prostate cancer: current state and future trends. Prostate Int. 2017;5(4):125–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yaxley JW, Raveenthiran S, Nouhaud FX, Samartunga H, Yaxley AJ, Coughlin G, et al. Outcomes of primary lymph node staging of intermediate and high risk prostate cancer with (68)Ga-PSMA positron emission tomography/computerized tomography compared to histological correlation of pelvic lymph node pathology. J Urol. 2019;201(4):815–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim SJ, Lee SW, Ha HK. Diagnostic performance of radiolabeled prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography for primary lymph node staging in newly diagnosed intermediate to high-risk prostate cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Int. 2019;102(1):27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gupta M, Choudhury PS, Rawal S, Goel HC, Singh A, Talwar V, et al. Risk stratification and staging in prostate cancer with prostatic specific membrane antigen PET/CTObjective: a one-stop-shop. Hell J Nucl Med. 2017;20(Suppl:156).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lin CY, Lee MT, Lin CL, Kao CH. Comparing the staging/restaging performance of 68Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen and 18F-choline PET/CT in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Nucl Med. 2019;44(5):365–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dyrberg E, Hendel HW, Huynh THV, Klausen TW, Logager VB, Madsen C, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA-PET/CT in comparison with (18)F-fluoride-PET/CT and whole-body MRI for the detection of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer: a prospective diagnostic accuracy study. Eur Radiol. 2019;29(3):1221–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hegemann NS, Wenter V, Spath S, Kusumo N, Li M, Bartenstein P, et al. Distribution of prostate nodes: a PET/CT-derived anatomic atlas of prostate cancer patients before and after surgical treatment. Radiat Oncol. 2016;11:37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wu SY, Boreta L, Shinohara K, Nguyen H, Gottschalk AR, Hsu IC, et al. Impact of staging (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET scans on radiation treatment plansin patients with prostate cancer. Urology. 2019;125:154–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roach PJ, Francis R, Emmett L, Hsiao E, Kneebone A, Hruby G, et al. The impact of (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT on management intent in prostate cancer: results of an Australian prospective multicenter study. Journal of nuclear medicine: official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. 2018;59(1):82–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Soldatov A, von Klot CAJ, Walacides D, Derlin T, Bengel FM, Ross TL, et al. Patterns of progression after (68)Ga-PSMA-ligand PET/CT-guided radiation therapy for recurrent prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019;103(1):95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    De Bari B, Mazzola R, Aiello D, Aloi D, Gatta R, Corradini S, et al. ((68)Ga)-PSMA-PET/CT for the detection of postoperative prostate cancer recurrence: possible implications on treatment volumes for radiation therapy. Cancer radiotherapie : journal de la Societe francaise de radiotherapie oncologique. 2019;23(3):194–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Han S, Woo S, Kim YJ, Suh CH. Impact of (68)Ga-PSMA PET on the management of patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2018;74(2):179–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Perera M, Papa N, Roberts M, Williams M, Udovicich C, Vela I, et al. Gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in advanced prostate cancer-updated diagnostic utility, sensitivity, specificity, and distribution of prostate-specific membrane antigen-avid lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2019.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Afshar-Oromieh A, Zechmann CM, Malcher A, Eder M, Eisenhut M, Linhart HG, et al. Comparison of PET imaging with a (68)Ga-labelled PSMA ligand and (18)F-choline-based PET/CT for the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41(1):11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bluemel C, Krebs M, Polat B, Linke F, Eiber M, Samnick S, et al. 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT in patients with biochemical prostate cancer recurrence and negative 18F-choline-PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med. 2016;41(7):515–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pfister D, Porres D, Heidenreich A, Heidegger I, Knuechel R, Steib F, et al. Detection of recurrent prostate cancer lesions before salvage lymphadenectomy is more accurate with (68)Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC than with (18)F-fluoroethylcholine PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43(8):1410–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rauscher I, Maurer T, Beer AJ, Graner FP, Haller B, Weirich G, et al. Value of 68Ga-PSMA HBED-CC PET for the assessment of lymph node metastases in prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence: comparison with histopathology after salvage lymphadenectomy. Journal of nuclear medicine: official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. 2016;57(11):1713–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Perera M, Papa N, Christidis D, Wetherell D, Hofman MS, Murphy DG, et al. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictors of positive 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in advanced prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2016;70(6):926–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pereira Mestre R, Treglia G, Ferrari M, Pascale M, Mazzara C, Azinwi NC, et al. Correlation between PSA kinetics and PSMA-PET in prostate cancer restaging: a meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Investig. 2019;49(3):e13063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Groheux D, Giacchetti S, Moretti J-L, Porcher R, Espié M, Lehmann-Che J, et al. Correlation of high (18)F-FDG uptake to clinical, pathological and biological prognostic factors in breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:426–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Buck A, Schirrmeister H, Kühn T, Shen C, Kalker T, Kotzerke J, et al. FDG uptake in breast cancer: correlation with biological and clinical prognostic parameters. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29:1317–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bos R, van Der Hoeven JJM, van Der Wall E, van Der Groep P, van Diest PJ, Comans EFI, et al. Biologic correlates of (18)fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in human breast cancer measured by positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:379–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Humbert O, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Cochet A, Gauthier M, Charon-Barra C, Guiu S, et al. Prognostic relevance at 5 years of the early monitoring of neoadjuvant chemotherapy using (18)F-FDG PET in luminal HER2-negative breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:416–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre-Yves Salaün
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ronan Abgral
    • 1
  • Olivier Malard
    • 2
  • Solène Querellou-Lefranc
    • 1
  • Gilles Quere
    • 3
  • Myriam Wartski
    • 4
  • Romain Coriat
    • 5
  • Elif Hindie
    • 6
  • David Taieb
    • 7
  • Antoine Tabarin
    • 8
  • Antoine Girard
    • 9
  • Jean-François Grellier
    • 10
  • Isabelle Brenot-Rossi
    • 11
  • David Groheux
    • 12
  • Caroline Rousseau
    • 13
  • Désirée Deandreis
    • 14
  • Jean-Louis Alberini
    • 15
  • Caroline Bodet-Milin
    • 16
  • Emmanuel Itti
    • 17
  • Olivier Casasnovas
    • 18
  • Françoise Kraeber-Bodere
    • 13
    • 16
  • Philippe Moreau
    • 19
  • Arnaud Philip
    • 20
  • Corinne Balleyguier
    • 21
  • Alain Luciani
    • 22
  • Florent Cachin
    • 23
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineUniversity Hospital of BrestBrestFrance
  2. 2.Head and NeckUniversity Hospital of NantesNantesFrance
  3. 3.Thoracic OncologyUniversity Hospital of BrestBrestFrance
  4. 4.Nuclear MedicineCochin Hospital AP-HPParisFrance
  5. 5.GastroenterologyCochin Hospital AP-HPParisFrance
  6. 6.Nuclear MedicineUniversity Hospital of BordeauxBordeauxFrance
  7. 7.Nuclear MedicineAP-HMMarseilleFrance
  8. 8.EndocrinologyUniversity Hospital of BordeauxBordeauxFrance
  9. 9.Nuclear MedicineEugène Marquis CenterRennesFrance
  10. 10.Nuclear MedicineFoch HospitalParisFrance
  11. 11.Nuclear MedicinePaoli-Calmettes InstituteMarseilleFrance
  12. 12.Nuclear MedicineHopital Saint Louis AP-HPParisFrance
  13. 13.Nuclear MedicineOuest Cancer InstituteNantesFrance
  14. 14.Nuclear Medicine, Department of Medical SciencesCitta della Salute e della ScienzaTurinItaly
  15. 15.Nuclear Medicine, Georges-François Leclerc center - François Mitterrand University HospitalDijonFrance
  16. 16.Nuclear MedicineUniversity Hospital of NantesNantesFrance
  17. 17.Nuclear MedicineHenri Mondor Hospital AP-HPParisFrance
  18. 18.HematologyUniversity Hospital Le BocageDijonFrance
  19. 19.HematologyUniversity Hospital of NantesNantesFrance
  20. 20.Centre du traitement de la douleurCHRU de BrestBrestFrance
  21. 21.RadiologyGustave Roussy InstituteVillejuifFrance
  22. 22.RadiologyHenri Mondor Hospital AP-HPParisFrance
  23. 23.Nuclear MedicineJean Perrin Cancer InstituteClermont-FerrandFrance

Personalised recommendations