Comparison between the diagnostic accuracies of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography and conventional imaging in recurrent urothelial carcinomas: a retrospective, multicenter study

  • Fabio Zattoni
  • Elena Incerti
  • Michele Colicchia
  • Paolo Castellucci
  • Stefano Panareo
  • Maria Picchio
  • Federico Fallanca
  • Alberto Briganti
  • Marco Moschini
  • Andrea Gallina
  • Jeffrey R. Karnes
  • Val Lowe
  • Stefano Fanti
  • Riccardo Schiavina
  • Ilaria Rambaldi
  • Vincenzo Ficarra
  • Laura Evangelista
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the performance accuracy of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) after primary tumor treatment for both bladder cancer (BC) and upper tract urothelial cancer (UTUC). To compare the accuracy of FDG PET/CT with that of contrast-enhanced-ceCT and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Methods

Data of patients with recurrent urothelial carcinomas (UC) after primary treatment were collected in a retrospective, international multicenter study. Inclusion criteria were (1) patients with a known history of UC in the BC and/or in the UTUC; (2) PET/CT images after curative intent treatment of the primary tumor; (3) conventional imaging modalities (abdominal ceCT or MRI, or total body ceCT, and chest X-ray: called C.I.) performed no more than 3 months from PET/CT; (4) available standard of reference (e.g., histological data or follow-up imaging modalities) for the validation of PET/CT findings. Exclusion criteria were other abdominal tumors, chemotherapy administration prior to and/or concomitant to imaging, and non-urothelial histologic variants. Sensitivities, specificities, positive, and negative predictive values were evaluated for all patients and separately for bladder and UTUC.

Results

Overall, 287 patients were enrolled. Two-hundred thirteen patients underwent cystectomy (74.2%), 35 nephroureterectomy (12.2%), 31 both cystectomy + nephroureterectomy (10.8%), 5 both cystectomy + conservative treatment for UTUC (1.4%), and 3 (1%) other types of nephron-sparing treatments for UTUC. Neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatments were performed in 36 (12.5%) and 111 (38.7%) patients, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence intervals) of PET/CT for the detection of recurrent UC were 94% (91% to 96%) and 79% (68% to 88%), respectively. However, sensitivity was higher for BC than UTUC (95% vs. 85%) while specificity was lower in BC (78% vs. 85% for BC and UTUC, respectively). PET/CT and C.I. findings were available in 198 patients. The results were positively concordant in 137 patients, negatively concordant in 23 patients, and discordant in 38 patients (20 negative at C.I. vs. positive at PET/CT and 18 positives at ceCT/MRI vs. negative at PET/CT) (K Cohen = 0.426; p < 0.001). Sensitivities, specificities, and accuracies (95% confidence intervals) of PET/CT vs. C.I. for the detection of recurrent BC and UTUC were 94% (90% to 97%) vs. 86% (81% to 92%), 79% (67% to 92%) vs. 59% (44% to 74%), and 91% (87% to 95%) vs. 81% (75% to 86%), respectively.

Conclusions

FDG PET/CT has a high diagnostic accuracy for the identification of recurrent UC, particularly in patients with BC. Moreover, its accuracy outperforms C.I. for both BC and UTUC.

Keywords

Bladder cancer Upper tract urothelial cancer FDG PET/CT Conventional imaging Recurrent urothelial carcinoma 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to Dr. Marco Bartolomei (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hospital of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy), Dr. Francesco Massari (Department of Oncology, Sant’Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy), Prof. Eugenio Brunocilla (Department of Urology, Sant’Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy), and Prof. Filiberto Zattoni (Department of Urology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy) for their support in the execution of the study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that 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 national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

261_2017_1443_MOESM1_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Table 1s (DOCX 14 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Alfred Witjes J, Lebret T, Comperat EM, et al. (2016) Updated 2016 EAU guidelines on muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer. Eur Urol 71(3):462–475CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aljabery F, Lindblom G, Skoog S, et al. (2015) PET/CT versus conventional CT for detection of lymph node metastases in patients with locally advanced bladder cancer. BMC Urol 15:87CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alongi P, Caobelli F, Gentile R, et al. (2017) Recurrent bladder carcinoma: clinical and prognostic role of 18 F-FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44:224–233CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Altamn D (1991) Practical statistics for medical research. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRCGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Apolo AB, Riches J, Schoder H, et al. (2010) Clinical value of fluorine-18 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in bladder cancer. J Clin Oncol 28:3973–3978CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Asai S, Fukumoto T, Tanji N, et al. (2015) Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for diagnosis of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma. Int J Clin Oncol 20:1042–1047CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bouchelouche K, Choyke PL (2015) PET/computed tomography in renal, bladder, and testicular cancer. PET Clin 10:361–374CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chaudhry MA, Wahl R, Kadhim LA, et al. (2013) Contrast enhanced computed tomography characterization of fluorodeoxygluocose-avid regional and non-regional lymph nodes in patients with suspicion of metastatic bladder cancer. J Clin Imaging Sci 3:66CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cowan NC (2012) CT urography for hematuria. Nat Rev Urol 9:218–226CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jadvar H, Quan V, Henderson RW, et al. (2008) [F-18]-Fluorodeoxyglucose PET and PET-CT in diagnostic imaging evaluation of locally recurrent and metastatic bladder transitional cell carcinoma. Int J Clin Oncol 13:42–47CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim JK, Park SY, Ahn HJ, et al. (2004) Bladder cancer: analysis of multi-detector row helical CT enhancement pattern and accuracy in tumor detection and perivesical staging. Radiology 231:725–731CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kitajima K, Yamamoto S, Fukushima K, et al. (2016) Update on advances in molecular PET in urological oncology. Jpn J Radiol 34:470–485CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kitajima K, Yamamoto S, Fukushima K, et al. (2016) FDG-PET/CT as a post-treatment restaging tool in urothelial carcinoma: comparison with contrast-enhanced CT. Eur J Radiol 85:593–598CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mallampati GK, Siegelman ES (2004) MR imaging of the bladder. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 12:545–555CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Matin SF, Sfakianos JP, Espiritu PN, et al. (2015) Patterns of lymphatic metastases in upper tract urothelial carcinoma and proposed dissection templates. J Urol 194:1567–1574CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moschini M, Karnes RJ, Sharma V, et al. (2016) Patterns and prognostic significance of clinical recurrences after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: a 20-year single center experience. Eur J Surg Oncol 42:735–743CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Munoz JJ, Ellison LM (2000) Upper tract urothelial neoplasms: incidence and survival during the last 2 decades. J Urol 164:1523–1525CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ozturk H (2015) Detecting metastatic bladder cancer using (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography/computed tomography. Cancer Res Treat 47:834–843CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ozturk H, Karapolat I (2015) Efficacy of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in restaging muscle-invasive bladder cancer following radical cystectomy. Exp Ther Med 9:717–724CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rioja J, Rodriguez-Fraile M, Lima-Favaretto R, et al. (2010) Role of positron emission tomography in urological oncology. BJU Int 106:1578–1593CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rohren EM, Turkington TG, Coleman RE (2004) Clinical applications of PET in oncology. Radiology 231:305–332CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sassa N, Kato K, Abe S, et al. (2014) Evaluation of 11C-choline PET/CT for primary diagnosis and staging of urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: a pilot study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 41:2232–2241CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2017) Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin 67:7–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Soria F, Shariat SF, Lerner SP, et al. (2016) Epidemiology, diagnosis, preoperative evaluation and prognostic assessment of upper-tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). World J Urol 35(3):379–387CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tanaka H, Yoshida S, Komai Y, et al. (2016) Clinical value of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in upper tract urothelial carcinoma: impact on detection of metastases and patient management. Urol Int 96(1):65–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabio Zattoni
    • 1
    • 2
  • Elena Incerti
    • 3
  • Michele Colicchia
    • 4
  • Paolo Castellucci
    • 5
  • Stefano Panareo
    • 6
  • Maria Picchio
    • 3
  • Federico Fallanca
    • 3
  • Alberto Briganti
    • 7
    • 8
  • Marco Moschini
    • 7
  • Andrea Gallina
    • 7
  • Jeffrey R. Karnes
    • 4
  • Val Lowe
    • 9
  • Stefano Fanti
    • 5
  • Riccardo Schiavina
    • 10
  • Ilaria Rambaldi
    • 6
  • Vincenzo Ficarra
    • 11
  • Laura Evangelista
    • 12
  1. 1.Department of UrologyHospital of UdineUdineItaly
  2. 2.Department of Surgery, Oncology and GastroenterologyUniversity of PaduaPaduaItaly
  3. 3.Nuclear Medicine DepartmentIRCCS San Raffaele Scientific InstituteMilanItaly
  4. 4.Department of UrologyMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  5. 5.Department of Nuclear MedicineSant’Orsola-Malpighi HospitalBolognaItaly
  6. 6.Nuclear Medicine Unit, Diagnostic Imaging e Laboratory Medicine DepartmentUniversity Hospital of FerraraFerraraItaly
  7. 7.Department of UrologyIRCCS San Raffaele Scientific InstituteMilanItaly
  8. 8.Vita-Salute San Raffaele UniversityMilanItaly
  9. 9.Division of Nuclear MedicineMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  10. 10.Department of UrologySant’Orsola-Malpighi HospitalBolognaItaly
  11. 11.Department of Human and Paediatric Pathology “Gaetano Barresi”, Urologic SectionUniversity of MessinaMessinaItaly
  12. 12.Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging UnitVeneto Institute of Oncology IOV – IRCCSPaduaItaly

Personalised recommendations