Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 7/2005

01-07-2005 | Original Article

Prostate cancer: a comparative study of 11C-choline PET and MR imaging combined with proton MR spectroscopy

Authors: Takako Yamaguchi, Jin Lee, Hiroji Uemura, Takeshi Sasaki, Nobukazu Takahashi, Takashi Oka, Kazuya Shizukuishi, Hisashi Endou, Yoshinobu Kubota, Tomio Inoue

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 7/2005

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Prostate cancer is difficult to visualise in its early stages using current imaging technology. The present study aimed to clarify the utility of 11C-choline PET for localising and evaluating cancer lesions in patients with prostate cancer by conducting a prospective comparison with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging combined with proton MR spectroscopy.

Methods

PET and MR imaging combined with proton MR spectroscopy were performed in 20 patients with prostate cancer. Correlations among the metabolite ratio of choline + creatine to citrate (Cho+Cr/Ci) on MR spectroscopy, serum PSA and maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax) of 11C-choline were assessed. The location of the primary lesion was assessed by the site of SUVmax and the laterality of the highest Cho+Cr/Ci ratio and confirmed by examination of surgical pathology specimens (n=16).

Results

PET exhibited a diagnostic sensitivity of 100% (20/20) for primary lesions, while the sensitivities of MR imaging and MR spectroscopy were 60% (12/20) and 65% (13/20), respectively. Weak linear correlations were observed between SUVmax and serum PSA (r=0.52, p<0.05), and between SUVmax and Cho+Cr/Ci ratio (r=0.49, p<0.05). Regarding the localisation of main primary lesions, PET results agreed with pathological findings in 13 patients (81%) (κ=0.59), while MR spectroscopy results were in accordance with pathological findings in eight patients (50%) (κ=0.11).

Conclusion

This preliminary study suggests that 11C-choline PET may provide more accurate information regarding the localisation of main primary prostate cancer lesions than MR imaging/MR spectroscopy. A further clinical study of 11C-choline PET in a large number of patients suspected of prostate cancer will be necessary to determine the clinical utility of 11C-choline PET in patients who clinically require biopsy.
Literature
1.
Wefer AE, Hricak H, Vigneron DB, Coakley FV, Lu Y, Wefer J, et al. Sextant localization of prostate cancer: comparison of sextant biopsy, magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging with step section histology. J Urol 2000;164:400–4.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Coakley FV, Kurhanewicz J, Lu Y, Jones KD, Swanson MG, Chang SD, et al. Prostate cancer tumor volume: measurement with endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 2002;223:91–7.PubMed
3.
Yu KK, Hricak H, Alagappan R, Chernoff DM, Bacchetti P, Zaloudek CJ. Detection of extracapsular extension of prostate carcinoma with endorectal and phased-array coil MR imaging: multivariate feature analysis. Radiology 1997;202:697–702.PubMed
4.
Thornbury JR, Ornstein DK, Choyke PL, Langlotz CP, Weinreb JC. Prostate cancer: what is the future role for imaging?. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:17–21.
5.
Inoue T, Oriuchi N, Tomiyoshi K, Endo K. A shifting landscape: what will be next FDG in PET oncology? Ann Nucl Med 2002;16:1–9.
6.
Liu IJ, Zafar MB, Lai YH, Segall GM, Terris MK. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography studies in diagnosis and staging of clinically organ-confined prostate cancer. Urology 2001;57:108–11.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Hoh CK, Seltzer MA, Franklin J, deKernion JB, Phelps ME, Belldegrun A. Positron emission tomography in urological oncology. J Urol 1998;159:347–56.
8.
Negendank W. Studies of human tumors by MRS: a review. NMR Biomed 1992;5:303–24.
9.
Warden CH, Friedkin M. Regulation of choline kinase activity and phosphatidylcholine biosynthesis by mitogenic growth factors in 3T3 fibroblasts. J Biol Chem 1985;260:6006–11.
10.
Hara T, Kosaka N, Kishi H. PET imaging of prostate cancer using carbon-11-choline. J Nucl Med 1998;39:990–5.PubMed
11.
Shinoura N, Nishijima M, Hara T, Haisa T, Yamamoto H, Fujii K, et al. Brain tumors: detection with C-11 choline PET. Radiology 1997;202:497–503.
12.
Hara T, Kosaka N, Kishi H. Development of F-fluoroethylcholine for cancer imaging with PET: synthesis, biochemistry, and prostate cancer imaging. J Nucl Med 2002;43:187–99.PubMed
13.
Sobin LH, Wittekind C, editors. TNM classification of malignant tumours. 6th ed. New York: Wiley-Liss; 2002. p 184–7.
14.
Hara T, Kosaka N, Shinoura N, Kondo T. PET imaging of brain tumor with [methyl-11C]choline. J Nucl Med 1997;38:842–7.PubMed
15.
Kundel HL, Polansky M. Measurement of observer agreement. Radiology 2003;228:303–8.PubMed
16.
Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Floyd CE. Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;166:773–8.
17.
Landis JR, Kock GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1997;33:159–74.
18.
Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron DB, Hricak H, Narayan P, Carroll P, Nelson SJ. Three-dimensional H-1 MR spectroscopic imaging of the in situ human prostate with high (0.24–0.7-cm3) spatial resolution. Radiology 1996;198:795–805.
19.
Partin AW, Carter HB, Chan DW, Epstein JI, Oesterling JE, Rock RC, et al. Prostate specific antigen in the staging of localized prostate cancer: influence of tumor differentiation, tumor volume and benign hyperplasia. J Urol 1990;143:747–52.
20.
Gleason DF. Histopathologic grading of prostatic cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol 1992;23:273–9.
21.
Wahl RL. Why nearly all PET of abdominal and pelvic cancers will be performed as PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2004;45:82S–95S.
22.
Sutinen E, Nurmi M, Roivainen A, Varpula M, Torvanen T, Lehikoinen P, et al. Kinetics of [11C]choline uptake in prostate cancer: a PET study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31:317–24.
23.
Sciebler ML, Schnall MD, Pollack HM, Lenkinski RE, Tomaszewski JE, Wein AJ, et al. Current role of MR imaging in the staging of adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Radiology 1993;189:339–52.PubMed
24.
Janssen MJ, Huijgens PC, Bouman AA, Oe PL, Donker AJ, van der Meulen J. Citrate versus heparin anticoagulation in chronic haemodialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1993;8:1228–33.
25.
White S, Hricak H, Forstner R, Kuhanewicz J, Vigneron DB, Zaloudek CJ, et al. Prostate cancer: effect of postbiopsy hemorrhage on interpretation of MR images. Radiology 1995;195:385–90.
26.
Ramchandani P, Schnall MD. Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate. Semin Roentgenol 1993;28:74–82.
27.
Kaji Y, Kuhanewicz J, Hricak H, Sokolov DL, Huang LR, Nelson SJ, et al. Localizing prostate cancer in the presence of postbiopsy changes on MR images: role of proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 1998;206:785–90.
28.
Rietbergen JB, Kruger AE, Hoedemaeker RF, Bangma CH, Kirkels WJ, Schroder FH. Repeat screening for prostate cancer after 1-year followup in 984 biopsied men: clinical and pathological features of detected cancer. J Urol 1998;160:2121–5.
Metadata
Title
Prostate cancer: a comparative study of 11C-choline PET and MR imaging combined with proton MR spectroscopy
Authors
Takako Yamaguchi
Jin Lee
Hiroji Uemura
Takeshi Sasaki
Nobukazu Takahashi
Takashi Oka
Kazuya Shizukuishi
Hisashi Endou
Yoshinobu Kubota
Tomio Inoue
Publication date
01-07-2005
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 7/2005
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-004-1755-y

Other articles of this Issue 7/2005

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 7/2005 Go to the issue

Original Article

Correlation between 99mTc-(V)-DMSA uptake and constitutive level of phosphorylated focal adhesion kinase in an in vitro model of cancer cell lines

Review Article

To use MIBI or not to use MIBI? That is the question when assessing tumour cells

Controversies

FDG imaging should be considered the preferred technique for accurate assessment of myocardial viability

Original Article

The route of administration (oral vs intravenous) does not influence dose or outcome in Graves’ disease and unifocal autonomy

Original Article

18F-FDG PET in malignant lymphoma: significance of positive findings

Original Article

90Y microsphere treatment of unresectable liver metastases: changes in 18F-FDG uptake and tumour size on PET/CT