Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Acquisition with 11C-choline and 18F-fluorocholine PET/CT for patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Annals of Nuclear Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of the systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate whether the choice between two radiotracers, 11C-choline (11C-cho) and 18F-fluorocholine (18F-FCH) for PET/CT, and different acquisition protocols contributed to detect metastases for patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy. We searched in January 2016 in Pubmed and Embase for articles that had used radiolabeled choline PET/CT in restaging. The meta-analysis evaluated technical and clinical aspects. Across 18 articles 1 219 of 2 213 patients (54.9 %) had a positive radiolabeled PET/CT image. Mean of the mean/median restaging PSA levels was 3.6 ± 2.7 ng/mL (range 0.5–10.7 ng/mL). Six articles with 11C-cho PET/CT had a radiation activity of 561 ± 122 MBq and it was 293 ± 47 MBq in 12 articles with 18F-FCH PET/CT. The difference was significant (P = 0.007, t test). Uptake time was 5 min in articles with 11C-cho PET/CT and it was 29 ± 24 min in articles with 18F-FCH PET/CT. The difference was significant (P = 0.02, t test). Thereby the detection rates of metastatic sites in articles with 11C-cho (30 ± 5 %) and 18F-FCH (39 ± 5 %) did not differ significantly (P = 0.26, t test). In linear regression analyses of the articles, the radiation activity of 11C-cho and 18F-FCH was not significantly associated with the detection rate of metastatic sites (P = 0.75 and P = 0.60). Restaging with radiolabeled choline PET/CT detected metastatic sites for patients with biochemical recurrence and PSA levels of 1–10 ng/mL at clinically relevant level. The choice between the two choline radiotracers and different acquisition protocols had no significant impact on detection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. von Eyben FE, Kairemo K. Meta-analysis of (11)C-choline and (18)F-choline PET/CT for management of patients with prostate cancer. Nucl Med Commun. 2014;35:221–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chan J, Syndikus I, Mahmood S, Bell L, Vinjamuri S. Is choline PET useful for identifying intraprostatic tumour lesions? A literature review. Nucl Med Commun. 2015;36:871–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Simone G, Di Pierro GB, Papalia R, et al. Significant increase in detection of prostate cancer recurrence following radical prostatectomy with an early imaging acquisition protocol with (1)(8)F-fluorocholine positron emission tomography/computed tomography. World J Urol. 2015;33:1511–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Massaro A, Ferretti A, Secchiero C, et al. Optimising (18)F-choline PET/CT acquisition protocol in prostate cancer patients. N Am J Med Sci. 2012;4:416–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Chondrogiannis S, Marzola MC, Grassetto G, et al. Optimized protocol for (18)F-choline PET/CT in patients with biochemically relapsed prostate cancer: experiences on 250 consecutive cases. Clin Nucl Med. 2015;40:e308–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cimitan M, Evangelista L, Hodolic M, et al. Gleason score at diagnosis predicts the rate of detection of 18F-choline PET/CT performed when biochemical evidence indicates recurrence of prostate cancer: experience with 1,000 patients. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:209–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Montironi R, Cheng L, Lopez-Beltran A, et al. Original Gleason system versus 2005 ISUP modified Gleason system: the importance of indicating which system is used in the patient’s pathology and clinical reports. Eur Urol. 2010;58:369–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Freedland SJ, Sutter ME, Dorey F, Aronson WJ. Defining the ideal cutpoint for determining PSA recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Prostate-specific antigen. Urology. 2003;61:365–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Roach M 3rd, Hanks G, Thames H Jr, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Whiting PF, Weswood ME, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PN, Kleijnen J. Evaluation of QUADAS, a tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:529–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wu LM, Xu JR, Gu HY, et al. Usefulness of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Acad Radiol. 2012;19:1215–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pelosi E, Arena V, Skanjeti A, et al. Role of whole-body 18F-choline PET/CT in disease detection in patients with biochemical relapse after radical treatment for prostate cancer. Radiol Med. 2008;113:895–904.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rinnab L, Simon J, Hautmann RE, et al. [(11)C]Choline PET/CT in prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2009;27:619–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Breeuwsma AJ, Pruim J, van den Bergh AC, et al. Detection of local, regional, and distant recurrence in patients with PSA relapse after external-beam radiotherapy using (11)C-choline positron emission tomography. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;77:160–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Giovacchini G, Picchio M, Coradeschi E, et al. Predictive factors of [(11)C]choline PET/CT in patients with biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:301–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Souvatzoglou M, Weirich G, Schwarzenboeck S, et al. The sensitivity of [11C]choline PET/CT to localize prostate cancer depends on the tumor configuration. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:3751–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Graute V, Jansen N, Ubleis C, et al. Relationship between PSA kinetics and [18F]fluorocholine PET/CT detection rates of recurrence in patients with prostate cancer after total prostatectomy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:271–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Henninger B, Vesco P, Putzer D, et al. [18F]choline positron emission tomography in prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: influence of antiandrogen therapy—a preliminary study. Nucl Med Commun. 2012;33:889–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schillaci O, Calabria F, Tavolozza M, et al. Influence of PSA, PSA velocity and PSA doubling time on contrast-enhanced 18F-choline PET/CT detection rate in patients with rising PSA after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:589–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Marzola MC, Chondrogiannis S, Ferretti A, et al. Role of 18F-choline PET/CT in biochemically relapsed prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: correlation with trigger PSA, PSA velocity, PSA doubling time, and metastatic distribution. Clin Nucl Med. 2013;38:e26–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Castellucci P, Ceci F, Graziani T, et al. Early biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy: which prostate cancer patients may benefit from a restaging 11C-Choline PET/CT scan before salvage radiation therapy? J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1424–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. D’Angelillo RM, Sciuto R, Ramella S, et al. (1)(8)F-Choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography-driven high-dose salvage radiation therapy in patients with biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy: feasibility study in 60 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;90:296–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kitajima K, Murphy RC, Nathan MA, et al. Detection of recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: comparison of 11C-choline PET/CT with pelvic multiparametric MR imaging with endorectal coil. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:223–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lepinoy A, Cochet A, Cueff A, et al. Pattern of occult nodal relapse diagnosed with (18)F-fluoro-choline PET/CT in prostate cancer patients with biochemical failure after prostate-only radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2014;111:120–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Piccardo A, Paparo F, Picazzo R, et al. Value of fused 18F-Choline-PET/MRI to evaluate prostate cancer relapse in patients showing biochemical recurrence after EBRT: preliminary results. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:103718.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Di Biagio D, Chiaravalloti A, Tavolozza M, Abbatiello P, Schillaci O. Detection of local recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: is there a role for early (18)F-FCH PET/CT? Ann Nucl Med. 2015;29:861–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kjolhede H, Ahlgren G, Almquist H, et al. (18)F-Choline PET/CT for early detection of metastases in biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2015;33:1749–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Quero L, Vercellino L, de Kerviler E, et al. 18F-Choline PET/CT and prostate MRI for staging patients with biochemical relapse after irradiation for prostate cancer. Clin Nucl Med. 2015;40:e492–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Hanna L, et al. Impact of 18F-FDG PET used after initial treatment of cancer: comparison of the National Oncologic PET Registry 2006 and 2009 cohorts. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:831–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Afshar-Oromieh A, Zechmann CM, Malcher A, 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;41:11–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Supiot S, Rio E, Pacteau V, Mauboussin MH, Campion L, Pein F. OLIGOPELVIS—GETUG P07: a multicentre phase II trial of combined salvage radiotherapy and hormone therapy in oligometastatic pelvic node relapses of prostate cancer. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:646.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Decaestecker K, De Meerleer G, Ameye F, et al. Surveillance or metastasis-directed therapy for oligometastatic prostate cancer recurrence (STOMP): study protocol for a randomized phase II trial. BMC Cancer. 2014;14:671.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

No funding was received.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center of Tobacco Control Research, 5230, Odense M, Denmark

    Finn E. von Eyben

  2. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

    Kalevi Kairemo

Authors
  1. Finn E. von Eyben
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kalevi Kairemo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Finn E. von Eyben.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that this manuscript is free of conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

von Eyben, F.E., Kairemo, K. Acquisition with 11C-choline and 18F-fluorocholine PET/CT for patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Nucl Med 30, 385–392 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-016-1078-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-016-1078-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation