+
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Positron emission tomography in imaging evaluation of staging, restaging, treatment response, and prognosis in prostate cancer

  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Prostate cancer is a prevalent public health problem worldwide. While imaging has played a major role in this disease, there still remain many challenges and opportunities. Positron emission tomography with various physiologically based radiotracers is fundamentally suited to interrogate this biologically and clinically heterogeneous disease along the course of its natural history. In this article, I review briefly the published evidence for the use of positron emission tomography with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose, 11C-acetate, and 18F- or 11C-choline in the imaging evaluation of prostate cancer. Although the focus of the article will be on these radiotracers given the accumulated experience with them, but I will also comment on the outlook for the use of other emerging PET radiotracers such as those targeted to the prostate-specific membrane antigen and the amino acid metabolism pathway. It is anticipated that PET will play major role in the evaluation of prostate cancer in the current evidence-based medicine environment. There will also be exciting novel prospects for the use of therapeutic-diagnostic (theransotic) pairs in the management of patients with prostate cancer.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

References

  1. Presti J Jr (2008) Does the yield of prostate cancer biopsy and repeat biopsy justify the frequency of their use? Nat Clin Pract Urol 5:246–247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Keetch DW, Catalona WJ, Smith DS, et al. (1994) Serial prostatic biopsies in men with persistently elevated serum prostate antigen values. J Urol 151:1571–1574

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bonekamp D, Jacobs MA, El-khouli R, et al. (2011) Advancements in MR imaging of the prostate: from diagnosis to interventions. Radiographics 31:677–703

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Hoeks CMA, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, et al. (2011) Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 261:46–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Franiel T, Stephan C, Erbersdobler A, et al. (2011) Areas suspicious for prostate cancer: MR-guided biopsy in patients with at least one transrectal US-guided biopsy with negative finding on multiparametric MR imaging for detection and biopsy planning. Radiology 259:162–172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. de Rooj M, Crienen S, Witjes JA, et al. (2014) Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR-guided targeted biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in diagnosing prostate cancer: a modeling study from a health care perspective. Eur Radiol 66:430–436

    Google Scholar 

  7. Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, et al. (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 68:438–450

    Google Scholar 

  8. Jadvar H (2012) Molecular imaging of prostate cancer: PET radiotracers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:278–291

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Jadvar H (2010) Prostate cancer: PET with 18F-FDG, 18F- or 11C-acetate, and 18F- or 11C choline. J Nucl Med 52:81–89

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA (2011) Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144:646–674

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Shiiba M, Ishihara K, Kimura G, et al. (2011) Evaluation of primary cancer using (11C)-methionine PET/CT and (18)F-FDG-PET/CT. Ann Nucl Med 26:138–145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Minamimoto R, Uemura H, Sano F, et al. (2011) The potential of FDG PET/CT for detecting prostate cancer in patients with an elevated serum PSA level. Ann Nucl Med 25:21–27

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bertagna F, Sadeghi R, Giovanella L, et al. (2014) Incidental uptake of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose in the prostate gland. Systematic review and meta-analysis on prevalence and risk of malignancy. Nuklearmedizin 53(6):249–258

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kwon T, Jeong IG, You D, et al. (2015) Prevalence and clinical significance of incidental (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in prostate. Korean J Urol 56:288–294

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Buchegger F, Garibotto V, Zilli T, et al. (2014) First imaging results of an intraindividual comparison of (11)C-acetate and (18)F-fluorocholine PET/CT in patients with prostate cancer at early biochemical first or second relapse after prostatectomy or radiotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 41:68–78

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Yoshimoto M, Waki A, Yonekura Y, et al. (2001) Characterization of acetate metabolism in tumor cells in relation to cell proliferation: acetate metabolism in tumor cells. Nucl Med Biol 28:117–122

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Janardhan S, Srivani P, Sastry GN (2006) Choline kinase: an important target for cancer. Curr Med Chem 13:1169–1186

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mohsen B, Giorgio T, Rasoul ZS, et al. (2013) Application of C-11-acetate positron-emission tomography (PET) imaging in prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. BJU Int 112:1062–1072

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mena E, Turkbey B, Mani H, et al. (2012) 11C-acetate PET/CT in localized prostate cancer: a study with MRI and histopathologic correlation. J Nucl Med 53:538–545

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Haseebuddin M, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, et al. (2013) 11C-acetate PET/CT before radical prostatectomy: nodal staging and treatment failure prediction. J Nucl Med 54:699–706

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Strandberg S, Karlsson CT, Sundström T, et al. (2014) (11)C-acetate PET/CT in pre-therapeutic lymph node staging in high-risk prostate cancer patients and its influence on disease management—a retrospective study. EJNMMI Res 4:55

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Souvatzoglou M, Weirich G, Schwarzenboeck S, et al. (2011) The sensitivity of [11C]choline PET/CT to localize prostate cancer depends on the tumor configuration. Clin Cancer Res 17:3751–3759

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Grosu AL, Weirich G, Wendl C, et al. (2014) 11C-Choline PET/pathology image coregistration in primary localized prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 41:2242–2248

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Scher B, Seitz M, Albinger W, et al. (2007) Value of 11C-choline PET and PET-CT in patients with suspected prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34:45–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Farsad M, Schiavina R, Castellucci P, et al. (2005) Detection and localization of prostate cancer: correlation of (11C) C-choline PET/CTPET-CT with histopathologic step-section analysis. J Nucl Med 46:1642–1649

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Martorana G, Schiavina R, Cort B, et al. (2006) 11C-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography for tumor localization of primary prostate cancer in comparison with 12-core biopsy. J Urol 176:954–960

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Eschmann SM, Pfannenberg AC, Rieger A, et al. (2007) Comparison of 11C-choline PET-CT and whole body MRI for staging of prostate cancer. Nuklearmedizin 46:161–168

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Eiber M, Nekolla SG, Maurer T, et al. (2015) 68Ga-PSMA PET/MR with multimodality image analysis for primary prostate cancer. Abdom Imaging 40:1769–1771

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Chakraborty PS, Tripathi M, Agarwal KK, et al. (2015) Metastatic poorly differentiated prostatic carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation: negative on 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med 40:e163–e166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Jadvar H, Chen K, Ukimura O (2015) Targeted prostate gland biopsy with combined transrectal ultrasound, mpMRI, and 18F-FMAU PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med. 40:e426–428

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bruce JY, Lang JM, McNeel DG, et al. (2012) Current controversies in the management of biochemical failure in prostate cancer. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol 10:716–722

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Cookson MS, Aus G, Burnett AL, et al. (2007) Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American Urological Association Prostate Guidelines for Localized Prostate Cancer Update Panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes. J Urol 177:540–545

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Roach M 3rd, Hanks G, Thames H Jr, et al. (2006) 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 65:965–974

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Chang CH, Wu HU, Tsai JJ, et al. (2003) Detecting metastatic pelvic lymph nodes by 18F-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with prostate specific antigen relapse after treatment for localized prostate cancer. Urol Int 70:311–315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Jadvar H, Desai B, Ji L, et al. (2012) Prospective evaluation of 18FNaF and 18F-FDG PET/CT in detection of occult metastatic disease in biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. Clin Nucl Med 37:637–643

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Umbehr MH, Muntener M, Hany T, et al. (2013) The role of choline and 18F-fluorocholine positron emission tomography (PET) and PET/CT in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 64:106–117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. von Eyben FE, Kairemo K (2014) Meta-analysis of 11C-choline and 18F-choline PET/CT for management of patients with prostate cancer. Nucl Med Commun 35:221–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Evangelista L, Zattoni F, Guittilla A, et al. (2013) Choline PET and PET/CT and biochemical relapse of prostate cancer. Clin Nucl Med 38:305–314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Treglia G, Ceriani L, Sadeghi R, et al. (2014) Relationship between prostate-specific antigen kinetics and detection rate of radiolabeled choline PET/CT in restaging prostate cancer patients: a meta-analysis. Clin Chem Lab Med 52:725–733

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Rodado-Marina S, Coronado-Poggio M, Garcia-Vicente AM, et al. (2015) Clinical utility of (18) F-fluorocholine positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in biochemical relapse of prostate cancer after radical treatment: results of a multicenter study. BJU Int 115:874–883

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Castellucci P, Picchio M (2013) 11C-choline PET/CT and PSA kinetics. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40(Suppl 1):S36–S40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Yu CY, Desai B, Ji L, Groshen S, et al. (2014) Comparative performance of PET tracers in biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer: a critical analysis of literature. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 4:580–601

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Eiber M, Maurer T, Souvatzoglou M, et al. (2015) Evaluation of hybrid 68Ga-PSMA ligand PET/CT in 248 patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Nucl Med 56:668–674

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Jadvar H, Desai B, Ji L, et al. (2013) RECIST 1.0, PERCIST 1.0 and PSA treatment response criteria in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer. Radiological Society of North America annual meeting, Chicago, IL [Abstract]

  45. Jadvar H, Desai B, Ji L, et al. (2015) Comparison of RECIST 1.0, PERCIST 1.0 and PCWG2 treatment response criteria in metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer. Society of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging annual meeting, Baltimore, MD [Abstract]

  46. Doroudinia A, Desai B, Yoon J, et al. (2015) Treatment response assessment in metastatic prostate cancer with 18F-NaF PET/CT. Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging annual meeting, Baltimore, MD [Abstract]

  47. Yu EY, Muzi M, Hackenbracht JA, Rezvani BB, et al. (2011) C11-acetate and F-18 FDG PET for men with prostate cancer bone metastases: elative finding and response to therapy. Clin Nucl Med 36:192–198

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Yu EY, Duan F, Muzi M, et al. (2015) Castration-resistant prostate cancer bone metastasis response measured by 18F-fluoride PET after treatment with dasatinib and correlation with progression-free survival: results from American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6687. J Nucl Med 56:354–360

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Cook G Jr, Parker C, Chua S, et al. (2011) 18F-fluoride PET: changes in uptake as a method to assess response in bone metastases from castrate-resistant prostate cancer patients treated with 223Ra-chloride (Alpharadin). EJNMMI Res 1:4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Miyazaki KS, Kuano Y, Kwee SA (2015) Changes in skeletal tumor activity on (18)F-choline PET/CT in patients receiving (223)Radium radionuclide therapy for metastatic prostate cancer. Nucl Med Mol Imaging 49:160–164

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Challapalli A, Barwick T, Tomasi G, et al. (2014) Exploring the potential of [11C]choline PET/CT as a novel imaging biomarker for predicting early treatment response in prostate cancer. Nucl Med Commun 35:20–29

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Amanie J, Jane HS, Wuest M, et al. (2013) Analysis of intraprostatic therapeutic effects in prostate cancer patients using [(11)C]-choline PET/CT after external beam radiation therapy. Curr Oncol 20:104–110

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Oyama N, Akino H, Suzuki Y, et al. (2002) Prognostic value of 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography imaging for patients with prostate cancer. Mol Imaging Biol 4:99–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Meirelles GS, Schoder H, Ravizzini GC, et al. (2010) Prognostic value of baseline [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and 99mTc-MDP bone scan in progressing metastatic prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 16:6093–6096

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Jadvar H, Desai B, Ji L, et al. (2013) Baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters as imaging biomarkers of overall survival in castrate-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 54:1195–1201

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Schiavina R, Scattoni V, Castellucci P, et al. (2008) 11c Choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography for preoperative lymph-node staging in intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer: comparison with clinical staging nomograms. Eur Urol 54:392–410

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Gacci M, Cai T, Siena G, et al. (2014) Prostate-specific antigen kinetics parameters are predictive of positron emission tomography features worsening in patients with biochemical relapse after prostate cancer treatment with radical intent: results from a longitudinal cohort study. Scand J Urol 48:259–267

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Breeuwsma AJ, Rybalov M, Leliveld AM, et al. (2012) Correlation of [11C]choline PET/CT with time to treatment and disease-specific survival in men with recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 56:440–446

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Giovacchini G, Picchio M, Garcia-Parra R, et al. (2014) 11C-Choline PET/CT predicts cancer-specific survival in patients with biochemical failure during androgen-deprivation therapy. J Nucl Med 55:233–241

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Kwee SA, Lim J, Watanabe A, et al. (2014) Prognosis related to metastatic burden measured by 18F-fluorocholine PET/CT in castration-resistant prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 55:905–910

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Mease RC, Foss CA, Pomper MG (2013) PET imaging in prostate cancer: focus on prostate-specific membrane antigen. Curr Top Med Chem 13:951–962

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Jadvar H (2015) PSMA PET in prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 56:1131–1132

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Okudaira H, Shikano N, Nishii R, et al. (2011) Putative transport mechanism and intracellular fate of trans-1-amino-3-18F-fluorocyclobutanecarboxylic acid in human prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 52:822–829

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Ren J, Yuan L, Wen G, et al. (2015) The value of anti-1-amino-3-18F-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid PET/CT in the diagnosis of recurrent prostate carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Acta Radiol . doi:10.1177/0284185115581541

    Google Scholar 

  65. Nanni C, Schiavina R, Brunocilla E, et al. (2015) 18F-Fluciclovine PET/CT for the detection of prostate cancer relapse: a comparison to 11C-choline PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med 40:e386–e391

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Beheshti M, Haim S, Zakavi R, et al. (2013) 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 54:833–840

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

Supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, grants number R01-CA111613, R21-CA142426, R21-EB017568 and P30-CA014089.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Keck School of Medicine of USC, University of Southern California, 2250 Alcazar Street, CSC 102, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA

    Hossein Jadvar

Authors
  1. Hossein Jadvar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hossein Jadvar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jadvar, H. Positron emission tomography in imaging evaluation of staging, restaging, treatment response, and prognosis in prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol 41, 889–898 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0563-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0563-0

Keywords

点击 这是indexloc提供的php浏览器服务，不要输入任何密码和下载