Advertisement

Annals of Nuclear Medicine

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 281–287 | Cite as

Comparison of choline influx from dynamic 18F-Choline PET/CT and clinicopathological parameters in prostate cancer initial assessment

  • Xavier Palard-Novello
  • Anne-Lise Blin
  • David Bourhis
  • Etienne Garin
  • Pierre-Yves Salaün
  • Anne Devillers
  • Solène Querellou
  • Patrick Bourguet
  • Florence Le Jeune
  • Hervé Saint-Jalmes
Original Article

Abstract

Aim

The aim of the study was to compare the kinetic analysis of 18F-labeled choline (FCH) uptake with static analysis and clinicopathological parameters in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer (PC).

Materials and methods

Sixty-one patients were included. PSA was performed few days before FCH PET/CT. Gleason scoring (GS) was collected from systematic sextant biopsies. FCH PET/CT consisted in a dual phase: early pelvic list-mode acquisition (from 0 to10 min post-injection) and late whole-body acquisition (60 min post-injection). PC volume of interest was drawn using an adaptative thresholding (40% of the maximal uptake) on the late acquisition and projected onto an early static frame of 10 min and each of the 20 reconstructed frames of 30 s. Kinetic analysis was performed using an imaging-derived plasma input function. Early kinetic parameter (K1 as influx) and static parameters (early SUVmean, late SUVmean, and retention index) were extracted and compared to clinicopathological parameters.

Results

K1 was significantly, but moderately correlated with early SUVmean (r = 0.57, p < 0.001) and late SUVmean (r = 0.43, p < 0.001). K1, early SUVmean, and late SUVmean were moderately correlated with PSA level (respectively, r = 0.36, p = 0.004; r = 0.67, p < 0.001; r = 0.51, p < 0.001). Concerning GS, K1 was higher for patients with GS ≥ 4 + 3 than for patients with GS < 4 + 3 (median value 0.409 vs 0.272 min− 1, p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed for static parameters.

Conclusions

FCH influx index K1 seems to be related to GS and could be a non-invasive tool to gain further information concerning tumor aggressiveness.

Keywords

18F-Choline Positron emission tomography Prostate cancer Kinetic analysis 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts 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.

Informed consent

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

References

  1. 1.
    Zhou CK, Check DP, Lortet-Tieulent J, Laversanne M, Jemal A, Ferlay J, et al. Prostate cancer incidence in 43 populations worldwide: An analysis of time trends overall and by age group. Int J Cancer. 2016;138(6):1388–400.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cimitan M, Evangelista L, Hodolic M, Mariani G, Baseric T, Bodanza V, 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 Off Publ Soc Nucl Med. 2015;56(2):209–15.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Oyen WJ, De Jong IJ. Molecular imaging of prostate cancer: tapping into the opportunities. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med. 2015;56(2):169–70.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    DeGrado TR, Baldwin SW, Wang S, Orr MD, Liao RP, Friedman HS, et al. Synthesis and evaluation of (18)F-labeled choline analogs as oncologic PET tracers. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med. 2001;42(12):1805–14.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    DeGrado TR, Reiman RE, Price DT, Wang S, Coleman RE. Pharmacokinetics and radiation dosimetry of 18F-fluorocholine. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med. 2002;43(1):92–6.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jadvar H. Prostate cancer: PET with 18F-FDG, 18F- or 11C-acetate, and 18F- or 11C-choline. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med. 2011;52(1):81–9.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cornford P, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, De Santis M, Gross T, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2017;71(4):630–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schwarzenbock S, Souvatzoglou M, Krause BJ. Choline PET and PET/CT in primary diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer. Theranostics. 2012;2(3):318–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71(4):618–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rodrigues G, Warde P, Pickles T, Crook J, Brundage M, Souhami L, et al. Pre-treatment risk stratification of prostate cancer patients: a critical review. Can Urol Assoc J J de l’Assoc des Urol du Can. 2012;6(2):121–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boychak O, Vos L, Makis W, Buteau FA, Pervez N, Parliament M, et al. Role for (11)C-choline PET in active surveillance of prostate cancer. Can Urol Assoc J J de l’Assoc des Urol du Can. 2015;9(3–4):E98–E103.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Beheshti M, Haim S, Zakavi R, Steinmair M, Waldenberger P, Kunit T, et al. Impact of 18F-choline PET/CT in prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence: influence of androgen deprivation therapy and correlation with PSA kinetics. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med. 2013;54(6):833–40.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Giovacchini G, Picchio M, Garcia-Parra R, Briganti A, Abdollah F, Gianolli L, et al. 11C-choline PET/CT predicts prostate cancer-specific survival in patients with biochemical failure during androgen-deprivation therapy. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med. 2014;55(2):233–41.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Morigi JJ, Stricker PD, van Leeuwen PJ, Tang R, Ho B, Nguyen Q, et al. Prospective comparison of 18F-fluoromethylcholine versus 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT in prostate cancer patients who have rising PSA after curative treatment and are being considered for targeted therapy. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med. 2015;56(8):1185–90.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Beheshti M, Langsteger W. PET imaging of prostate cancer using radiolabeled choline. PET Clinics. 2009;4(2):173–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chondrogiannis S, Marzola MC, Grassetto G, Rampin L, Massaro A, Colletti PM, 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(6):e308-12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Choi JY, Yang J, Noworolski SM, Behr S, Chang AJ, Simko JP, et al. 18F fluorocholine dynamic time-of-flight PET/MR imaging in patients with newly diagnosed intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer: initial clinical-pathologic comparisons. Radiology. 2017;282(2):429–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mathieu C, Ferrer L, Carlier T, Colombie M, Rusu D, Kraeber-Bodere F, et al. Assessment of lymph nodes and prostate status using early dynamic curves with (18)F-choline PET/CT in prostate cancer. Front Med. 2015;2:67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rosenkrantz AB, Koesters T, Vahle AK, Friedman K, Bartlett RM, Taneja SS, et al. Quantitative graphical analysis of simultaneous dynamic PET/MRI for assessment of prostate cancer. Clin Nucl Med. 2015;40(4):e236–e240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Takesh M. Kinetic modeling application to (18)F-fluoroethylcholine positron emission tomography in patients with primary and recurrent prostate cancer using two-tissue compartmental model. World J Nucl Med. 2013;12(3):101–10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kristian A, Revheim ME, Qu H, Maelandsmo GM, Engebraten O, Seierstad T, et al. Dynamic (18)F-FDG-PET for monitoring treatment effect following anti-angiogenic therapy in triple-negative breast cancer xenografts. Acta Oncol. 2013;52(7):1566–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schierz JH, Opfermann T, Steenbeck J, Lopatta E, Settmacher U, Stallmach A, et al. Early dynamic 18F-FDG PET to detect hyperperfusion in hepatocellular carcinoma liver lesions. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med. 2013;54(6):848 – 54.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Strauss LG, Koczan D, Klippel S, Pan L, Willis S, Sachpekidis C, et al. Dynamic PET with (18)F-deoxyglucose (FDG) and quantitative assessment with a two-tissue compartment model reflect the activity of glucose transporters and hexokinases in patients with colorectal tumors. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;3(5):417 – 24.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schaefferkoetter JD, Wang Z, Stephenson MC, Roy S, Conti M, Eriksson L, et al. Quantitative 18F-fluorocholine positron emission tomography for prostate cancer: correlation between kinetic parameters and Gleason scoring. EJNMMI Res. 2017;7(1):25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Daisne JF, Duprez T, Weynand B, Lonneux M, Hamoir M, Reychler H, et al. Tumor volume in pharyngolaryngeal squamous cell carcinoma: comparison at CT, MR imaging, and FDG PET and validation with surgical specimen. Radiology. 2004;233(1):93–100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Verwer EE, Oprea-Lager DE, van den Eertwegh AJ, van Moorselaar RJ, Windhorst AD, Schwarte LA, et al. Quantification of 18F-fluorocholine kinetics in patients with prostate cancer. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med. 2015;56(3):365–71.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Beheshti M, Imamovic L, Broinger G, Vali R, Waldenberger P, Stoiber F, et al. 18F choline PET/CT in the preoperative staging of prostate cancer in patients with intermediate or high risk of extracapsular disease: a prospective study of 130 patients. Radiology. 2010;254(3):925–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    de Perrot T, Rager O, Scheffler M, Lord M, Pusztaszeri M, Iselin C, et al. Potential of hybrid (1)(8)F-fluorocholine PET/MRI for prostate cancer imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:1744–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Evangelista L, Briganti A, Fanti S, Joniau S, Reske S, Schiavina R, et al. New clinical indications for (18)F/(11)C-choline, new tracers for positron emission tomography and a promising hybrid device for prostate cancer staging: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2016;70(1):161–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Krause BJ, Souvatzoglou M, Tuncel M, Herrmann K, Buck AK, Praus C, et al. The detection rate of [11C]choline-PET/CT depends on the serum PSA-value in patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35(1):18–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    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 Off Publ Soc Nucl Med. 2009;50(9):1394–400.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mapelli P, Incerti E, Ceci F, Castellucci P, Fanti S, Picchio M. 11C- or 18F-choline PET/CT for imaging evaluation of biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med. 2016;57(Suppl 3):43S-48S.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kwee SA, Wei H, Sesterhenn I, Yun D, Coel MN. Localization of primary prostate cancer with dual-phase 18F-fluorocholine PET. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med. 2006;47(2):262–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xavier Palard-Novello
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Anne-Lise Blin
    • 1
    • 3
  • David Bourhis
    • 4
  • Etienne Garin
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
  • Pierre-Yves Salaün
    • 4
    • 6
    • 7
  • Anne Devillers
    • 2
  • Solène Querellou
    • 4
    • 6
    • 7
  • Patrick Bourguet
    • 1
  • Florence Le Jeune
    • 1
    • 2
    • 8
  • Hervé Saint-Jalmes
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.University of Rennes 1RennesFrance
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear MedicineCentre Eugène MarquisRennesFrance
  3. 3.UMR1099 INSERMRennesFrance
  4. 4.Department of Nuclear MedicineCentre Hospitalier UniversitaireBrestFrance
  5. 5.UMR 1241 INSERMRennesFrance
  6. 6.University of Bretagne OccidentaleBrestFrance
  7. 7.EA 3878BrestFrance
  8. 8.EA 4712RennesFrance

Personalised recommendations