[11C]Choline PET/CT detection of bone metastases in patients with PSA progression after primary treatment for prostate cancer: comparison with bone scintigraphy

  • Maria Picchio
  • Elena Giulia Spinapolice
  • Federico Fallanca
  • Cinzia Crivellaro
  • Giampiero Giovacchini
  • Luigi Gianolli
  • Cristina Messa
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical usefulness of [11C]choline positron emission tomography (PET)/CT in comparison with bone scintigraphy (BS) in detecting bone metastases (BM) of patients with biochemical progression after radical treatment for prostate cancer (PCa).

Methods

Seventy-eight consecutive patients with biochemical progression of PCa (mean prostate-specific antigen 21.1 ng/ml, range 0.2–500.0 ng/ml) referred for both [11C]choline PET/CT and BS for restaging purposes were retrospectively analysed. The diagnostic accuracy of [11C]choline PET/CT and BS was assessed by using morphological imaging and/or follow-up as standards of reference. As equivocal findings were found, the accuracy analysis was performed twice, once including them as positive and once as negative. A separate analysis was also performed in hormone-resistant patients and data compared with those of patients who did not receive anti-androgenic treatment.

Results

Equivocal findings occurred in 1 of 78 (1%) cases in [11C]choline PET/CT and in 21 of 78 (27%) cases in BS. Depending on their attribution as either positive or negative, the ranges of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy for [11C]choline PET/CT were 89–89%, 98–100%, 96–100%, 94–96% and 95–96%, respectively. For BS they were 100–70%, 75–100%, 68-–100%, 100–86% and 83–90%, respectively. Concordant findings between [11C]choline PET/CT and BS occurred in 55 of 78 (71%) cases. The accuracy of [11C]choline PET/CT did not significantly (p = 0.30) differ between hormone-resistant patients (97%) and those who did not receive anti-androgenic treatment (95%).

Conclusion

In clinical practice, [11C]choline PET/CT may not replace BS because of its lower sensitivity. However, for its high specificity, [11C]choline PET/CT positive findings may accurately predict the presence of BM. Equivocal findings are more frequent in BS than [11C]choline PET/CT.

Keywords

[11C]Choline Positron emission tomography PET/CT Bone scintigraphy Prostate cancer recurrence Bone metastases 

References

  1. 1.
    Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 2010;60(5):277–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coleman RE. Metastatic bone disease: clinical features, pathophysiology and treatment strategies. Cancer Treat Rev 2001;27(3):165–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johansson JE, Holmberg L, Johansson S, Bergström R, Adami HO. Fifteen-year survival in prostate cancer. A prospective, population-based study in Sweden. JAMA 1997;277(6):467–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Saad F, Lipton A, Cook R, Chen YM, Smith M, Coleman R. Pathologic fractures correlate with reduced survival in patients with malignant bone disease. Cancer 2007;110(8):1860–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Han M, Partin AW, Zahurak M, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI, Walsh PC. Biochemical (prostate specific antigen) recurrence probability following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2003;169(2):517–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fuccio C, Castellucci P, Schiavina R, Santi I, Allegri V, Pettinato V, et al. Role of 11C-choline PET/CT in the restaging of prostate cancer patients showing a single lesion on bone scintigraphy. Ann Nucl Med 2010;24(6):485–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason M, Matveev V, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 2011;59(1):61–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Damber JE, Aus G. Prostate cancer. Lancet 2008;371(9625):1710–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Price DT, Coleman RE, Liao RP, Robertson CN, Polascik TJ, DeGrado TR. Comparison of [18F]fluorocholine and [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose for positron emission tomography of androgen dependent and androgen independent prostate cancer. J Urol 2002;168(1):273–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abuzallouf S, Dayes I, Lukka H. Baseline staging of newly diagnosed prostate cancer: a summary of the literature. J Urol 2004;171(6 Pt 1):2122–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carlin BI, Andriole GL. The natural history, skeletal complications, and management of bone metastases in patients with prostate carcinoma. Cancer 2000;88(12 Suppl):2989–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rudoni M, Antonini G, Favro M, Baroli A, Brambilla M, Cardani G, et al. The clinical value of prostate-specific antigen and bone scintigraphy in the staging of patients with newly diagnosed, pathologically proven prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med 1995;22(3):207–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cher ML, Bianco FJ, Lam JS, Davis LP, Grignon DJ, Sakr WA, et al. Limited role of radionuclide bone scintigraphy in patients with prostate specific antigen elevations after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1998;160(4):1387–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jacobson AF, Fogelman I. Bone scanning in clinical oncology: does it have a future? Eur J Nucl Med 1998;25(9):1219–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason M, Matveev V, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2011;59(4):572–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boellaard R, O’Doherty MJ, Weber WA, Mottaghy FM, Lonsdale MN, Stroobants SG, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37(1):181–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hricak H, Choyke PL, Eberhardt SC, Leibel SA, Scardino PT. Imaging prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary perspective. Radiology 2007;243(1):28–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beheshti M, Langsteger W, Fogelman I. Prostate cancer: role of SPECT and PET in imaging bone metastases. Semin Nucl Med 2009;39(6):396–407.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nakai T, Okuyama C, Kubota T, Yamada K, Ushijima Y, Taniike K, et al. Pitfalls of FDG-PET for the diagnosis of osteoblastic bone metastases in patients with breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32(11):1253–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Picchio M, Crivellaro C, Giovacchini G, Gianolli L, Messa C. PET-CT for treatment planning in prostate cancer. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009;53(2):245–68.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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 Urol 2011;59:51–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Beheshti M, Vali R, Waldenberger P, Fitz F, Nader M, Loidl W, et al. Detection of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer by 18F fluorocholine and 18F fluoride PET-CT: a comparative study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008;35(10):1766–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Picchio M, Messa C, Landoni C, Gianolli L, Sironi S, Brioschi M, et al. Value of [11C]choline-positron emission tomography for re-staging prostate cancer: a comparison with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography. J Urol 2003;169(4):1337–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schöder H, Larson SM. Positron emission tomography for prostate, bladder, and renal cancer. Semin Nucl Med 2004;34(4):274–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Giovacchini G, Picchio M, Coradeschi E, Bettinardi V, Gianolli L, Scattoni V, 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(2):301–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Picchio M, Landoni C, Messa C, Gianolli L, Matarrese M, De Cobelli F, et al. Positive [11C]choline and negative [18F]FDG with positron emission tomography in recurrence of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179(2):482–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Castellucci P, Fuccio C, Nanni C, Santi I, Rizzello A, Lodi F, et al. Influence of trigger PSA and PSA kinetics on 11C-choline PET/CT detection rate in patients with biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy. J Nucl Med 2009;50(9):1394–400.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cimitan M, Bortolus R, Morassut S, Canzonieri V, Garbeglio A, Baresic T, et al. [18F]fluorocholine PET/CT imaging for the detection of recurrent prostate cancer at PSA relapse: experience in 100 consecutive patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33(12):1387–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Even-Sapir E, Metser U, Mishani E, Lievshitz G, Lerman H, Leibovitch I. The detection of bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: 99mTc-MDP planar bone scintigraphy, single- and multi-field-of-view SPECT, 18F-fluoride PET, and 18F-fluoride PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2006;47(2):287–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Du Y, Cullum I, Illidge TM, Ell PJ. Fusion of metabolic function and morphology: sequential [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography/computed tomography studies yield new insights into the natural history of bone metastases in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007;25(23):3440–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Beheshti M, Vali R, Waldenberger P, Fitz F, Nader M, Hammer J, et al. The use of F-18 choline PET in the assessment of bone metastases in prostate cancer: correlation with morphological changes on CT. Mol Imaging Biol 2009;11(6):446–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Serpa Neto A, Tobias-Machado M, Esteves MA, Senra MD, Wroclawski ML, Fonseca FL, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of bone metabolism in prostate adenocarcinoma. BMC Urol 2010;10:9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Giovacchini G, Picchio M, Coradeschi E, Scattoni V, Bettinardi V, Cozzarini C, et al. [(11)C]choline uptake with PET/CT for the initial diagnosis of prostate cancer: relation to PSA levels, tumour stage and anti-androgenic therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008;35(6):1065–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fuccio C, Schiavina R, Castellucci P, Rubello D, Martorana G, Celli M, et al. Androgen deprivation therapy influences the uptake of (11)C-choline in patients with recurrent prostate cancer: the preliminary results of a sequential PET/CT study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Picchio
    • 1
    • 2
  • Elena Giulia Spinapolice
    • 3
  • Federico Fallanca
    • 1
  • Cinzia Crivellaro
    • 3
  • Giampiero Giovacchini
    • 3
    • 4
  • Luigi Gianolli
    • 1
  • Cristina Messa
    • 2
    • 3
    • 5
  1. 1.Nuclear Medicine DepartmentSan Raffaele Scientific InstituteMilanItaly
  2. 2.Institute for Bioimaging and Molecular PhysiologyNational Research Council (IBFM-CNR)MilanItaly
  3. 3.Center for Molecular BioimagingUniversity of Milano-BicoccaMilanItaly
  4. 4.Institute of Nuclear MedicineUniversity Hospital BaselBaselSwitzerland
  5. 5.Department of Nuclear MedicineSan Gerardo HospitalMonzaItaly

Personalised recommendations