Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Diagnostic value of retrospectively fused 64CuCl2 PET/MRI in biochemical relapse of prostate cancer: comparison with fused 18F-Choline PET/MRI, 64CuCl2 PET/CT, 18F-Choline PET/CT, and mpMRI

  • Pelvis
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the diagnostic value of retrospectively fused PET/MRI by comparing the detection rates (DRs) of fused 64CuCl2 PET/MRI vs. fused 18F-Choline PET/MRI in patients with suspected prostatic cancer (PCa) recurrence. The secondary objective was to compare the DRs of fused PET/MRI vs. those of the separate imaging modalities.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated 50 PCa patients with biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy (RT). All patients underwent 64CuCl2 PET/CT, 18F-Choline PET/CT, and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) within 15 days. Fused 64CuCl2-PET/MRI and fused 18F-Choline PET/MRI images were obtained by retrospective co-registration of MRI and PET images. Experienced readers interpreted the images, and the DRs of each imaging modality were assessed.

Results

In the patient-based analysis, overall DRs of fused 64CuCl2 PET/MRI, fused 18F-Choline PET/MRI, 64CuCl2 PET/CT, 18F-Choline PET/CT, and mpMRI were 88%, 68%, 82%, 56%, and 74%, respectively. In the lesion-based analysis, overall DRs of fused 64CuCl2 PET/MRI, fused 18F-Choline PET/MRI, 64CuCl2 PET/CT, 18 F-Choline PET/CT, and mpMRI were 95%, 66%, 87%, 58%, and 71%, respectively.

Conclusions

Retrospectively fused PET/MRI is able to overcome the limitations of the separate interpretation of the individual imaging modalities. Fused 64CuCl2 PET/MRI provided the highest diagnostic performance in the detection of PCa local relapse.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

PCa:

Prostate cancer

RP:

Radical prostatectomy

RT:

Radiotherapy

mpMRI:

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging

DWI:

Diffusion-weighted imaging

DCE:

Dynamic contrast-enhanced

DR:

Detection rate

SUV:

Standardized uptake value

PSA:

Prostate-specific antigen

PSMA:

Prostate-specific membrane antigen

TBRs:

Tumor-to-background ratios

References

  1. Trabulsi EJ, Rumble RB, Jadvar H, et al (2020) Optimum Imaging Strategies for Advanced Prostate Cancer: ASCO Guideline. J Clin Oncol JCO1902757. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.02757

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Maurer T, Eiber M, Fanti S, et al (2016) Imaging for Prostate Cancer Recurrence. Eur Urol Focus 2:139–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2016.02.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Perez-Lopez R, Tunariu N, Padhani AR, et al (2019) Imaging Diagnosis and Follow-up of Advanced Prostate Cancer: Clinical Perspectives and State of the Art. Radiology 292:273–286. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019181931https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019181931

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gaur S, Turkbey B (2018) Prostate MR Imaging for Posttreatment Evaluation and Recurrence. Radiol Clin North Am 56:263–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2017.10.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Piccardo A, Paparo F, Piccazzo R, et al (2014) Value of fused 18F-Choline-PET/MRI to evaluate prostate cancer relapse in patients showing biochemical recurrence after EBRT: preliminary results. Biomed Res Int 2014:103718. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/103718

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Paparo F, Piccardo A, Bacigalupo L, et al (2015) Value of bimodal (18)F-choline-PET/MRI and trimodal (18)F-choline-PET/MRI/TRUS for the assessment of prostate cancer recurrence after radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy. Abdom Imaging 40:1772–1787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0345-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hicks RM, Simko JP, Westphalen AC, et al (2018) Diagnostic Accuracy of 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI Compared with Multiparametric MRI in the Detection of Prostate Cancer. Radiology 289:730–737. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018180788

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Calais J, Ceci F, Eiber M, et al (2019) (18)F-fluciclovine PET-CT and (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET-CT in patients with early biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy: a prospective, single-centre, single-arm, comparative imaging trial. Lancet Oncol 20:1286–1294. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30415-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Giesel FL, Hadaschik B, Cardinale J, et al (2017) F-18 labelled PSMA-1007: biodistribution, radiation dosimetry and histopathological validation of tumor lesions in prostate cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44:678–688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3573-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Giesel FL, Knorr K, Spohn F, et al (2019) Detection Efficacy of (18)F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT in 251 Patients with Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy. J Nucl Med 60:362–368. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.212233

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Wetter A, Lipponer C, Nensa F, et al (2014) Evaluation of the PET component of simultaneous [(18)F]choline PET/MRI in prostate cancer: comparison with [(18)F]choline PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 41:79–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-013-2560-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Piccardo A, Paparo F, Puntoni M, et al (2018) (64)CuCl2 PET/CT in Prostate Cancer Relapse. J Nucl Med 59:444–451. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.195628

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Schwenck J, Rempp H, Reischl G, et al (2017) Comparison of 68 Ga-labelled PSMA-11 and 11C-choline in the detection of prostate cancer metastases by PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44:92–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3490-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Riola-Parada C, Carreras-Delgado JL, Pérez-Dueñas V, et al (2018) (18)F-choline PET/MRI in suspected recurrence of prostate carcinoma TT - PET/RM con (18)F-colina en la sospecha de recurrencia del carcinoma de próstata. Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol 37:296–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.remn.2018.04.001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zhang TW, Kassam Z, Rachinsky I, et al (2015) 18F-Fluorocholine (18F-FCH) Hybrid PET/MRI in the Evaluation of Men With Suspected Prostate Cancer Recurrence Following Definitive Local Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol 93:E214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.07.1089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Eiber M, Rauscher I, Souvatzoglou M, et al (2017) Prospective head-to-head comparison of (11)C-choline-PET/MR and (11)C-choline-PET/CT for restaging of biochemical recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44:2179–2188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3797-y

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, et al (2019) Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur Urol 76:340–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hövels AM, Heesakkers RAM, Adang EM, et al (2008) The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol 63:387–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2007.05.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wibmer AG, Burger IA, Sala E, et al (2016) Molecular Imaging of Prostate Cancer. Radiographics 36:142–159. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2016150059

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Achard V, Lamanna G, Denis A, et al (2019) Recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: restaging performance of 18F-choline hybrid PET/MRI. Med Oncol 36:67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-019-1291-z

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Francesco Paparo and Alice Peirano contributed equally to the manuscript.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Unit of Radiology, Department of Diagnostic Imaging, E.O. Galliera Hospital, Genoa, Italy

    Francesco Paparo, Lorenzo Bacigalupo, Ilaria Mussetto & Gian Andrea Rollandi

  2. DISSAL – Department of Health Sciences, University of Genoa, Via Antonio Pastore, 1, 16132, Genoa, GE, Italy

    Alice Peirano & João Matos

  3. Unit of Interventional Radiology, Department of Diagnostic Imaging, E.O. Galliera Hospital, Genoa, Italy

    Umberto Rossi

  4. Unit of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Diagnostic Imaging, E.O. Galliera Hospital, Genoa, Italy

    Gianluca Bottoni & Arnoldo Piccardo

  5. Medical Physics Unit, Department of Diagnostic Imaging, E.O. Galliera Hospital, Genoa, Italy

    Martina Ugolini

  6. Prostate Unit, Department of Urology, E.O. Galliera Hospital, Genoa, Italy

    Carlo Introini

  7. Unit of Radiotherapy, Department of Diagnostic Imaging, E.O. Galliera Hospital, Genoa, Italy

    Filippo Grillo Ruggieri

Authors
  1. Francesco Paparo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alice Peirano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. João Matos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lorenzo Bacigalupo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Umberto Rossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ilaria Mussetto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gianluca Bottoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Martina Ugolini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Carlo Introini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Filippo Grillo Ruggieri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Gian Andrea Rollandi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Arnoldo Piccardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to João Matos.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors whose names are listed below certify that they have NO affiliations with, or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest.

Informed consent

The study was approved by the local ethics committee and the “Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco,” a public agency under the control of the Italian Ministry of Health. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 13 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Paparo, F., Peirano, A., Matos, J. et al. Diagnostic value of retrospectively fused 64CuCl2 PET/MRI in biochemical relapse of prostate cancer: comparison with fused 18F-Choline PET/MRI, 64CuCl2 PET/CT, 18F-Choline PET/CT, and mpMRI. Abdom Radiol 45, 3896–3906 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02591-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02591-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation