PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of 11C-choline positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) for nodal staging of prostate cancer (PCa) in different populations of high-risk patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated 262 individuals with intermediate- or high-risk PCa submitted to radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Within men with high-risk disease, we identified a subgroup of individuals harboring very high-risk (VHR, n = 28) disease: clinical stage ≥ T2c and more than 5 cores with Gleason score 8-10; primary biopsy Gleason score of 5; 3 high-risk features; or prostate-specific antigen ≥ 30 ng/mL. The diagnostic accuracy of PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) was assessed after stratifying patients according to risk group classification on a patient- and anatomic region-based analysis. RESULTS: On patient-based analysis, considering high-risk patients (n = 155), 11C-choline PET/CT versus CECT had sensitivity and specificity of 50% and 76% versus 21% and 92%, respectively. Considering VHR men as separate subgroups (n = 28), 11C-choline PET/CT versus CECT had sensitivity and specificity of 71% and 93% versus 25% and 79%, respectively. Accordingly, in the VHR category, the area under the curve of 11C-choline PET/CT versus CECT was 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.0) versus 0.69 (95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.86), respectively. On anatomic region-based analysis, considering the VHR group, 11C-choline PET/CT versus CECT had sensitivity and specificity of 70.6% and 95.5% versus 35.3% and 98.5%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients with VHR characteristics could represent the ideal candidate to undergo disease staging with PET/CT before surgery with the highest cost efficacy.

Preoperative Staging With 11C-Choline PET/CT Is Adequately Accurate in Patients With Very High-Risk Prostate Cancer

Porreca A;
2018-01-01

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of 11C-choline positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) for nodal staging of prostate cancer (PCa) in different populations of high-risk patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated 262 individuals with intermediate- or high-risk PCa submitted to radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Within men with high-risk disease, we identified a subgroup of individuals harboring very high-risk (VHR, n = 28) disease: clinical stage ≥ T2c and more than 5 cores with Gleason score 8-10; primary biopsy Gleason score of 5; 3 high-risk features; or prostate-specific antigen ≥ 30 ng/mL. The diagnostic accuracy of PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) was assessed after stratifying patients according to risk group classification on a patient- and anatomic region-based analysis. RESULTS: On patient-based analysis, considering high-risk patients (n = 155), 11C-choline PET/CT versus CECT had sensitivity and specificity of 50% and 76% versus 21% and 92%, respectively. Considering VHR men as separate subgroups (n = 28), 11C-choline PET/CT versus CECT had sensitivity and specificity of 71% and 93% versus 25% and 79%, respectively. Accordingly, in the VHR category, the area under the curve of 11C-choline PET/CT versus CECT was 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.0) versus 0.69 (95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.86), respectively. On anatomic region-based analysis, considering the VHR group, 11C-choline PET/CT versus CECT had sensitivity and specificity of 70.6% and 95.5% versus 35.3% and 98.5%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients with VHR characteristics could represent the ideal candidate to undergo disease staging with PET/CT before surgery with the highest cost efficacy.
2018
Choline PET/CT
Histology confirmation
Nodal staging
Prostate cancer
Radical prostatectomy
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11699/90873
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 21
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 18
social impact