European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2016
Recurrent prostate cancer detection with anti-3-[(18)F]FACBC PET/CT: comparison with CT.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Odewole Oluwaseun A, Tade Funmilayo I, Nieh Peter T, Savir-Baruch Bital, Jani Ashesh B, Master Viraj A, Rossi Peter J, Halkar Raghuveer K, Osunkoya Adeboye O, Akin-Akintayo Oladunni, Zhang Chao, Chen Zhengjia, Goodman Mark M, Schuster David M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of the synthetic amino acid analogue PET radiotracer anti-3-[(18)F]FACBC (fluciclovine) with that of CT in the detection of recurrent prostate carcinoma.
METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of 53 bone scan-negative patients with suspected recurrent prostate carcinoma who underwent fluciclovine PET/CT and routine clinical CT within 90 days of each other. The correlation between imaging findings and histology and clinical follow-up was evaluated. Positivity rates and diagnostic performance were calculated for fluciclovine PET/CT and CT.
RESULTS: Of 53 fluciclovine PET/CT and 53 CT examinations, 41 (77.4 %) and 10 (18.9 %), respectively, had positive findings for recurrent disease. Positivity rates were higher with fluciclovine PET/CT than with CT at all prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, PSA doubling times and original Gleason scores. In the prostate/bed, fluciclovine PET/CT was true-positive in 31 and CT was true-positive in 4 of 51 patients who met the reference standard. In extraprostatic regions, fluciclovine PET/CT was true-positive in 12 and CT was true-positive in 3 of 41 patients who met the reference standard. Of the 43 index lesions used to prove positivity, 42 (97.7 %) had histological proof. In 51 patients with sufficient follow-up to calculate diagnostic performance in the prostate/bed, fluciclovine PET/CT demonstrated a sensitivity of 88.6 %, a specificity of 56.3 %, an accuracy of 78.4 %, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 81.6 %, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 69.2 %; the respective values for CT were 11.4 %, 87.5 %, 35.3 %, 66.7 % and 31.1 %. In 41 patients with sufficient follow-up to calculate diagnostic performance in extraprostatic regions, fluciclovine PET/CT demonstrated a sensitivity of 46.2 %, a specificity of 100 %, an accuracy of 65.9 %, a PPV of 100 %, and an NPV of 51.7 %; the respective values for CT were 11.5 %, 100 %, 43.9 %, 100 % and 39.5 %.
CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of fluciclovine PET/CT in recurrent prostate cancer is superior to that of CT and fluciclovine PET/CT provides better delineation of prostatic from extraprostatic recurrence.
METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of 53 bone scan-negative patients with suspected recurrent prostate carcinoma who underwent fluciclovine PET/CT and routine clinical CT within 90 days of each other. The correlation between imaging findings and histology and clinical follow-up was evaluated. Positivity rates and diagnostic performance were calculated for fluciclovine PET/CT and CT.
RESULTS: Of 53 fluciclovine PET/CT and 53 CT examinations, 41 (77.4 %) and 10 (18.9 %), respectively, had positive findings for recurrent disease. Positivity rates were higher with fluciclovine PET/CT than with CT at all prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, PSA doubling times and original Gleason scores. In the prostate/bed, fluciclovine PET/CT was true-positive in 31 and CT was true-positive in 4 of 51 patients who met the reference standard. In extraprostatic regions, fluciclovine PET/CT was true-positive in 12 and CT was true-positive in 3 of 41 patients who met the reference standard. Of the 43 index lesions used to prove positivity, 42 (97.7 %) had histological proof. In 51 patients with sufficient follow-up to calculate diagnostic performance in the prostate/bed, fluciclovine PET/CT demonstrated a sensitivity of 88.6 %, a specificity of 56.3 %, an accuracy of 78.4 %, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 81.6 %, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 69.2 %; the respective values for CT were 11.4 %, 87.5 %, 35.3 %, 66.7 % and 31.1 %. In 41 patients with sufficient follow-up to calculate diagnostic performance in extraprostatic regions, fluciclovine PET/CT demonstrated a sensitivity of 46.2 %, a specificity of 100 %, an accuracy of 65.9 %, a PPV of 100 %, and an NPV of 51.7 %; the respective values for CT were 11.5 %, 100 %, 43.9 %, 100 % and 39.5 %.
CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of fluciclovine PET/CT in recurrent prostate cancer is superior to that of CT and fluciclovine PET/CT provides better delineation of prostatic from extraprostatic recurrence.