Prostate Cancer
Conditions
Keywords
PET, MRI, Choline, FEC, prostate cancer
Brief summary
To investigate the sensitivity of the \[18F\]fluoroethylcholine (FEC) Positron-Emission-Tomography/ Magnetic Resonance Imaging (PET/MRI) method in tumour detection and location (side assignment, encapsulation, invasion of the seminal vesicle) and detection of affected lymph nodes, and to compare these with presently used detection procedures (needle biopsy, digital rectal examination, transrectal ultrasound, and pre-therapeutic assessment), with a view to finding out whether the \[18F\]fluoroethylcholine PET/MRI method is comparable to, or superior to, the established method. Postoperative histology served as the standard of reference.
Detailed description
Prostate carcinoma is today in Germany the most frequently diagnosed cancer disease of men and is - after bronchial carcinoma - their second most frequent cause of cancer-related death. Around 22% of all new cancer diagnoses among males are prostate-related. This corresponds to an age-adjusted incidence rate of nearly 100 per 100,000 males in the population, and to well above 40,000 new diagnoses of prostate cancer per year \[Robert-Koch-Institut, 2010\]. The dramatic increase in recent decades is attributable more to improved diagnostic methods and a generally increased life expectancy than to an actual increase in the incidence of disease \[Robert-Koch-Institut, 2010\]. The total annual mortality rate is around 11,000 \[Statistisches Bundesamt, 1994\]. Prostate carcinoma is virtually unknown among men under 40 years of age. The annual prevalence rises with increasing age - between the 40th and 80th years of life by a factor of more than 1000. Autopsies have shown that among men over 70 up to 80% have a latent prostate carcinoma, without it being fatal \[Breslow 1977; Börgemann, 2006\]. The patients' average age at diagnosis is 71 years. The five-year prostate-cancer-specific survival rate after diagnosis is about 80-99% for tumours that are restricted to the gland itself \[Porter, 2006\]. For disseminated tumours this figure is considerably smaller, not more than 35% \[von Eschenbach, 1996\]. A prospect of complete regression exists only for non-metastasing carcinomas, but there it is quite good: under aggressive treatment, 90% of cancers restricted to the prostate itself can be completely cured, as can 50% of those that have crossed the gland's capsule \[Deutsche Gesellschaft für Urologie, 2009\]. At present, there is a lack of adequate pre-therapeutic staging methods. This in turn often prevents the reliable choice of a stage-adapted therapeutic regimen, which could possibly offer a better prognosis even for carcinomas extending into neighbouring organs. A consequence of this uncertainty is that in individual cases the therapy is not ideally suited to the stage of disease, and the success of radiation treatment, hormonal therapy and chemotherapy can only approximately be matched with the stage of dissemination. Until now, the only reliable method for lymph-node diagnosis is operative staging by lymphadenectomy. No reliable diagnostic method is available by which the degree of spreading of the tumour within the prostate can be established. In this context, Positron-Emission-Tomography (PET) examination with radioactively labelled choline appears to offer a promising primary imaging-diagnostic staging method, as indicated by the studies reviewed below. This diagnostic method as applied to humans was first described by Gauthier et al. \[1985\]. This was followed by two detailed reports from a Japanese group: Hara et al. \[1997\] first investigated the potential of \[11C\]choline in brain tumours and found a clear enrichment of this marker in the tumours of 24 patients, while normal brain tissue was not enriched with it. In a subsequent study by the same group \[Hara, 1998\], the enrichment of fluorodeoxyglucose was compared with the choline uptake in the lesions of ten prostate-cancer patients. Thus, the choline enrichment (SUV, standardised uptake value) was 3.48 ± 1.31 in 43 lesions, while in the normal environment of the lesser pelvis the corresponding value was below 1.0. De Jong et al. \[2003\] investigated 67 patients, of whom 15 had histologically confirmed lymph-node metastases: the \[11C\]choline test gave a 'true positive' result in 12 of 15 patients and a 'false negative' in 3 patients, thus indicating that \[11C\]choline PET is sufficiently sensitive and specific for the pre-operative staging of lymph-node metastases of prostate carcinoma. In a pre-operative staging using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) with a combined endorectal and body-phased-array coil, Pegios et al. \[2003\] investigated 42 patients with strong clinical suspicion, or with needle-biopsy confirmation, of prostate cancer and were able to differentiate between stages of extracapsular growth and seminal-vesicle infiltration (tumor stage T2 versus T3 \[T2=tumor restricted to the gland itself; T3a=extracapsule growing of the tumor; T3b= tumor infiltration into the seminal-vesicles\]) with an accuracy of 94-97% (sensitivity 100%, specificity between 87% and 93% for observers 1 and 2). The exact, local tumour stage was identified with an accuracy of 75%. However, for lymph-node infiltration a sensitivity of only 25% was achieved: one of four lymph-node-positive patients was correctly identified. In a more recent study, a Japanese group \[Yamaguchi, 2005\] investigated the application of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and choline-PET in 20 patients with needle-biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer. The PET imaging achieved a sensitivity of 100%, NMR (quotient \[(creatine + choline) / citrate\]) 65% and unsupported MRI 60%. For 16 patients radical prostatectomy was performed; results correlated with those of pre-operative local staging with PET by 81%, and with MRI by 50%. The site of choline uptakes in PET was visualised by MRI using the distance of the prostate from the femoral head and the pubic symphysis.At present, no data relevant for the present study indication are available on the software-fused imaging by combined PET/MRI. The combination of high-resolution endorectal MRI with functional PET imaging could come to offer a decisive advantage in the staging of prostate carcinoma. The present study was designed to test this in an appropriate patient population. A system combining PET and MRI was recently granted approval in the U.S.A. by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration \[FDA, 2011\].
Interventions
PET scans were performed on a LSO scanner (ECAT ACCEL, Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) by using a multiphase protocol starting with a cold transmission scan of the lower pelvis. This was followed by a list mode emission scan with 10 frames à 1 minute starting immediately after the administration of 3.3MBq \[18F\]Fluoroethylcholine chloride (FEC; Eckert & Ziegler EURO-PET Berlin GmbH) as a bolus through the cubital vein. After a short gap due to computer processing time the whole body scan was performed starting at the upper thoracic aperture down to the proximal femur. Acquisition parameters were 3 minutes emission scan and 2 minutes transmission scan for each bed position. Therefore the prostate region was scanned again at 45 minutes p.i. (post injection) A delayed local acquisition at 65 minutes over the lower pelvis with 6 minutes emission and 2 minutes transmission finished the diagnostic acquisition procedure.
The MRI examination was performed on a 1.5Tesla MRI system (Gyroscan ACS-NT, Philips, Hamburg, Germany) with combined QBody and endorectal coil. Pelvic assessment and lymph node staging was effected with 5mm T2 weighted (T2w) turbo spin echo (TSE) transversal and a coronal short-tau inversion recovery (STIR) sequence. For prostate assessment, 3mm endorectal T2w spin echo (SE) sagittal, transversal and coronal sequences were acquired.
Sponsors
Study design
Eligibility
Inclusion criteria
* Histologically diagnosed prostate cancer (needle biopsy) * Radical prostatectomy as primary treatment * No nutrition within 12 hours before Positron-Emission-Tomography (PET) * No food containing choline within 24 hous before PET * Age \> 50 years
Exclusion criteria
* Total endo-prothesis of the hip region * Clinical or chemical detection of an acute infection * Missing patient agreement * Secondary cancer * Surgical treatment within 3 month before PET * Claustrophobia * Medical drugs with choline * Severe liver damage * Cardiac infarction * Bradycardia (pulse rate \< 55/min) * Allergic reaction against Neurotropan * Bronchial asthma * Cardiac pacemaker * Small metal implants (e.g., clips, cochlea-implants, etc.)
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Number of Participants With Positive or Negative Results in PET, MRI or PET/MRI for Prostate Cancer Compared to Histological Findings | within < 2 weeks after PET/MRI | PET positive lesions were measured on its own and evaluated as malignant just as hypointense lesions on MRI. In PET/MRI analysis, MRI suspect lesions without FEC uptake were considered not to be malignant. PET positive lesions in central periurethral zone with inhomogenous signal intensity and sharp edges on MRI images were also considered to be benign. PET positive lesions in the peripheral zone without a hypointense correlate on MRI were considered to be malignant. At least 1 histological confirmed cancer lesion has to be detected by each of the 3 methods to be patient based true positive. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All Patients | within < 2 weeks after PET/MRI | PET positive lesions (n=128) were measured on its own and evaluated as malignant just as hypointense lesions on MRI. In PET/MRI analysis, MRI suspect lesions without FEC uptake were considered not to be malignant. PET positive lesions in central periurethral zone with inhomogenous signal intensity and sharp edges on MRI images were also considered to be benign. PET positive lesions in the peripheral zone without a hypointense correlate on MRI were considered to be malignant. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, negative and positive predictive values were determined. |
| Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Gleason Score >6 (3+3) | within < 2 weeks after PET/MRI | PET positive lesions in patients with Gleason \>6(3+3),n=43 were measured on its own and evaluated as malignant just as hypointense lesions on MRI. In PET/MRI analysis, MRI suspect lesions without FEC uptake were considered not to be malignant. PET positive lesions in central periurethral zone with inhomogenous signal intensity and sharp edges on MRI images were also considered to be benign. PET positive lesions in the peripheral zone without a hypointense correlate on MRI were considered to be malignant. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, negative & positive predictive values were determined. |
| Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Malignant Lesions >5mm (n=98) | within < 2 weeks after PET/MRI | PET positive lesions were measured on its own and evaluated as malignant just as hypointense lesions on MRI. In PET/MRI analysis, MRI suspect lesions without FEC uptake were considered not to be malignant. PET positive lesions in central periurethral zone with inhomogenous signal intensity and sharp edges on MRI images were also considered to be benign. PET positive lesions in the peripheral zone without a hypointense correlate on MRI were considered to be malignant. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, negative and positive predictive values were determined without malign lesions \<=5mm. |
Countries
Germany
Participant flow
Recruitment details
Enrollment of first patient: 18th. December, 2007 Completion by last patient: 12th. January, 2011 Single Center Study at Federal Armed Forces Hospital Ulm
Pre-assignment details
44 patients were enrolled, 38 patients completed the study. 1 patient decided not to choose prostatectomy after Positron-Emission-Tomography/ Magnetic Resonance Imaging (PET/MRI), although it was planned at point of enrollment. 5 patients did not get a PET/MRI-can because of failed radiopharmaceutical synthesis of \[18F\]fluoroethylcholine (FEC).
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| FEC-PET/eMRI The day before surgery, fasting patients received a bladder catheter right before Positron-Emission-Tomography/ Magnetic Resonance Imaging (PET/MRI) examination to avoid different sizes of the urinary bladder in PET and MRI scan and to reduce bladder FEC-activity overlay of the prostate. After applying the endorectal MRI coil patients were positioned in a vacuum mattress on MRI table. Additionally, 4 PET/MRI multimodality spot markers containing 37kBq \[22Na\] and a MRI T2w (T2 weighed) hyperintense gel were attached at the hip region to allow landmark PET/MRI fusion. After MRI acquisition the modular MRI table was fixed on the PET table system. Patients kept in the same position during the whole procedure. PET scans were performed by using a multiphase protocol starting with a list mode emission scan immediately after the administration of 3.3MBq \[18F\]fluoroethylcholine (FEC) as a bolus through the cubital vein. | 44 |
| Total | 44 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 |
|---|---|---|
| Overall Study | failed radiopharmaceut. synthesis of FEC | 5 |
| Overall Study | Withdrawal by Subject | 1 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | FEC-PET/eMRI |
|---|---|
| Age, Categorical <=18 years | 0 Participants |
| Age, Categorical >=65 years | 21 Participants |
| Age, Categorical Between 18 and 65 years | 23 Participants |
| Age Continuous | 65 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 6 |
| Region of Enrollment Germany | 44 participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 0 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 44 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk |
|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | — / — |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 39 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 39 |
Outcome results
Number of Participants With Positive or Negative Results in PET, MRI or PET/MRI for Prostate Cancer Compared to Histological Findings
PET positive lesions were measured on its own and evaluated as malignant just as hypointense lesions on MRI. In PET/MRI analysis, MRI suspect lesions without FEC uptake were considered not to be malignant. PET positive lesions in central periurethral zone with inhomogenous signal intensity and sharp edges on MRI images were also considered to be benign. PET positive lesions in the peripheral zone without a hypointense correlate on MRI were considered to be malignant. At least 1 histological confirmed cancer lesion has to be detected by each of the 3 methods to be patient based true positive.
Time frame: within < 2 weeks after PET/MRI
Population: Comparison of imaging results (FEC-PET, MRI and PET/MRI) with postoperative histological findings (all patients).
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| [18F]Fluoroethylcholine Positron-Emission-Tomography (FEC-PET) | Number of Participants With Positive or Negative Results in PET, MRI or PET/MRI for Prostate Cancer Compared to Histological Findings | True Positive | 36 participants |
| [18F]Fluoroethylcholine Positron-Emission-Tomography (FEC-PET) | Number of Participants With Positive or Negative Results in PET, MRI or PET/MRI for Prostate Cancer Compared to Histological Findings | False Positive | 1 participants |
| [18F]Fluoroethylcholine Positron-Emission-Tomography (FEC-PET) | Number of Participants With Positive or Negative Results in PET, MRI or PET/MRI for Prostate Cancer Compared to Histological Findings | True Negative | 0 participants |
| [18F]Fluoroethylcholine Positron-Emission-Tomography (FEC-PET) | Number of Participants With Positive or Negative Results in PET, MRI or PET/MRI for Prostate Cancer Compared to Histological Findings | False Negative | 1 participants |
| [18F]Fluoroethylcholine Positron-Emission-Tomography (FEC-PET) | Number of Participants With Positive or Negative Results in PET, MRI or PET/MRI for Prostate Cancer Compared to Histological Findings | Total True | 36 participants |
| [18F]Fluoroethylcholine Positron-Emission-Tomography (FEC-PET) | Number of Participants With Positive or Negative Results in PET, MRI or PET/MRI for Prostate Cancer Compared to Histological Findings | Total False | 2 participants |
| Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) | Number of Participants With Positive or Negative Results in PET, MRI or PET/MRI for Prostate Cancer Compared to Histological Findings | Total False | 11 participants |
| Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) | Number of Participants With Positive or Negative Results in PET, MRI or PET/MRI for Prostate Cancer Compared to Histological Findings | True Positive | 26 participants |
| Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) | Number of Participants With Positive or Negative Results in PET, MRI or PET/MRI for Prostate Cancer Compared to Histological Findings | False Negative | 11 participants |
| Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) | Number of Participants With Positive or Negative Results in PET, MRI or PET/MRI for Prostate Cancer Compared to Histological Findings | Total True | 27 participants |
| Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) | Number of Participants With Positive or Negative Results in PET, MRI or PET/MRI for Prostate Cancer Compared to Histological Findings | False Positive | 1 participants |
| Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) | Number of Participants With Positive or Negative Results in PET, MRI or PET/MRI for Prostate Cancer Compared to Histological Findings | True Negative | 0 participants |
| PositronEmissionTomography/MagneticResonanceImaging (PET/MRI) | Number of Participants With Positive or Negative Results in PET, MRI or PET/MRI for Prostate Cancer Compared to Histological Findings | False Positive | 0 participants |
| PositronEmissionTomography/MagneticResonanceImaging (PET/MRI) | Number of Participants With Positive or Negative Results in PET, MRI or PET/MRI for Prostate Cancer Compared to Histological Findings | True Negative | 1 participants |
| PositronEmissionTomography/MagneticResonanceImaging (PET/MRI) | Number of Participants With Positive or Negative Results in PET, MRI or PET/MRI for Prostate Cancer Compared to Histological Findings | Total False | 2 participants |
| PositronEmissionTomography/MagneticResonanceImaging (PET/MRI) | Number of Participants With Positive or Negative Results in PET, MRI or PET/MRI for Prostate Cancer Compared to Histological Findings | False Negative | 2 participants |
| PositronEmissionTomography/MagneticResonanceImaging (PET/MRI) | Number of Participants With Positive or Negative Results in PET, MRI or PET/MRI for Prostate Cancer Compared to Histological Findings | True Positive | 35 participants |
| PositronEmissionTomography/MagneticResonanceImaging (PET/MRI) | Number of Participants With Positive or Negative Results in PET, MRI or PET/MRI for Prostate Cancer Compared to Histological Findings | Total True | 36 participants |
Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All Patients
PET positive lesions (n=128) were measured on its own and evaluated as malignant just as hypointense lesions on MRI. In PET/MRI analysis, MRI suspect lesions without FEC uptake were considered not to be malignant. PET positive lesions in central periurethral zone with inhomogenous signal intensity and sharp edges on MRI images were also considered to be benign. PET positive lesions in the peripheral zone without a hypointense correlate on MRI were considered to be malignant. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, negative and positive predictive values were determined.
Time frame: within < 2 weeks after PET/MRI
Population: Comparison of lesion based (128)imaging results (FEC-PET, MRI and PET/MRI) with postoperative histological findings (all patients = 38).
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| [18F]Fluoroethylcholine Positron-Emission-Tomography (FEC-PET) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All Patients | True positive | 59 lesions |
| [18F]Fluoroethylcholine Positron-Emission-Tomography (FEC-PET) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All Patients | False positive | 26 lesions |
| [18F]Fluoroethylcholine Positron-Emission-Tomography (FEC-PET) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All Patients | True negative | 19 lesions |
| [18F]Fluoroethylcholine Positron-Emission-Tomography (FEC-PET) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All Patients | False negative | 24 lesions |
| [18F]Fluoroethylcholine Positron-Emission-Tomography (FEC-PET) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All Patients | Total true | 78 lesions |
| [18F]Fluoroethylcholine Positron-Emission-Tomography (FEC-PET) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All Patients | Total false | 50 lesions |
| Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All Patients | Total false | 70 lesions |
| Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All Patients | True positive | 40 lesions |
| Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All Patients | False negative | 43 lesions |
| Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All Patients | Total true | 58 lesions |
| Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All Patients | False positive | 27 lesions |
| Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All Patients | True negative | 18 lesions |
| PositronEmissionTomography/MagneticResonanceImaging (PET/MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All Patients | False positive | 8 lesions |
| PositronEmissionTomography/MagneticResonanceImaging (PET/MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All Patients | True negative | 37 lesions |
| PositronEmissionTomography/MagneticResonanceImaging (PET/MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All Patients | Total false | 36 lesions |
| PositronEmissionTomography/MagneticResonanceImaging (PET/MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All Patients | False negative | 28 lesions |
| PositronEmissionTomography/MagneticResonanceImaging (PET/MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All Patients | True positive | 55 lesions |
| PositronEmissionTomography/MagneticResonanceImaging (PET/MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All Patients | Total true | 92 lesions |
Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Gleason Score >6 (3+3)
PET positive lesions in patients with Gleason \>6(3+3),n=43 were measured on its own and evaluated as malignant just as hypointense lesions on MRI. In PET/MRI analysis, MRI suspect lesions without FEC uptake were considered not to be malignant. PET positive lesions in central periurethral zone with inhomogenous signal intensity and sharp edges on MRI images were also considered to be benign. PET positive lesions in the peripheral zone without a hypointense correlate on MRI were considered to be malignant. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, negative & positive predictive values were determined.
Time frame: within < 2 weeks after PET/MRI
Population: lesion based (patients with Gleasons Score \>6(3+3),n= 43) results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38).~Gleason Grades: 1+2=well differentiated (rare), 3=moderately diff., 4=poorly diff., 5=undifferentiated~Gleason Score = histological primary grade + secondary grade (min=2,max=10)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| [18F]Fluoroethylcholine Positron-Emission-Tomography (FEC-PET) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Gleason Score >6 (3+3) | True positive | 27 lesions |
| [18F]Fluoroethylcholine Positron-Emission-Tomography (FEC-PET) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Gleason Score >6 (3+3) | False positive | 5 lesions |
| [18F]Fluoroethylcholine Positron-Emission-Tomography (FEC-PET) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Gleason Score >6 (3+3) | True negative | 8 lesions |
| [18F]Fluoroethylcholine Positron-Emission-Tomography (FEC-PET) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Gleason Score >6 (3+3) | False negative | 3 lesions |
| [18F]Fluoroethylcholine Positron-Emission-Tomography (FEC-PET) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Gleason Score >6 (3+3) | Total true | 35 lesions |
| [18F]Fluoroethylcholine Positron-Emission-Tomography (FEC-PET) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Gleason Score >6 (3+3) | Total false | 8 lesions |
| Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Gleason Score >6 (3+3) | Total false | 17 lesions |
| Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Gleason Score >6 (3+3) | True positive | 22 lesions |
| Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Gleason Score >6 (3+3) | False negative | 8 lesions |
| Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Gleason Score >6 (3+3) | Total true | 26 lesions |
| Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Gleason Score >6 (3+3) | False positive | 9 lesions |
| Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Gleason Score >6 (3+3) | True negative | 4 lesions |
| PositronEmissionTomography/MagneticResonanceImaging (PET/MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Gleason Score >6 (3+3) | False positive | 1 lesions |
| PositronEmissionTomography/MagneticResonanceImaging (PET/MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Gleason Score >6 (3+3) | True negative | 11 lesions |
| PositronEmissionTomography/MagneticResonanceImaging (PET/MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Gleason Score >6 (3+3) | Total false | 5 lesions |
| PositronEmissionTomography/MagneticResonanceImaging (PET/MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Gleason Score >6 (3+3) | False negative | 4 lesions |
| PositronEmissionTomography/MagneticResonanceImaging (PET/MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Gleason Score >6 (3+3) | True positive | 27 lesions |
| PositronEmissionTomography/MagneticResonanceImaging (PET/MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Gleason Score >6 (3+3) | Total true | 38 lesions |
Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Malignant Lesions >5mm (n=98)
PET positive lesions were measured on its own and evaluated as malignant just as hypointense lesions on MRI. In PET/MRI analysis, MRI suspect lesions without FEC uptake were considered not to be malignant. PET positive lesions in central periurethral zone with inhomogenous signal intensity and sharp edges on MRI images were also considered to be benign. PET positive lesions in the peripheral zone without a hypointense correlate on MRI were considered to be malignant. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, negative and positive predictive values were determined without malign lesions \<=5mm.
Time frame: within < 2 weeks after PET/MRI
Population: lesion based (malignant lesions \>5mm, n=98) results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| [18F]Fluoroethylcholine Positron-Emission-Tomography (FEC-PET) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Malignant Lesions >5mm (n=98) | False positive | 24 lesions |
| [18F]Fluoroethylcholine Positron-Emission-Tomography (FEC-PET) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Malignant Lesions >5mm (n=98) | True negative | 18 lesions |
| [18F]Fluoroethylcholine Positron-Emission-Tomography (FEC-PET) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Malignant Lesions >5mm (n=98) | False negative | 8 lesions |
| [18F]Fluoroethylcholine Positron-Emission-Tomography (FEC-PET) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Malignant Lesions >5mm (n=98) | Total true | 66 lesions |
| [18F]Fluoroethylcholine Positron-Emission-Tomography (FEC-PET) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Malignant Lesions >5mm (n=98) | Total false | 32 lesions |
| [18F]Fluoroethylcholine Positron-Emission-Tomography (FEC-PET) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Malignant Lesions >5mm (n=98) | True positive | 48 lesions |
| Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Malignant Lesions >5mm (n=98) | True positive | 37 lesions |
| Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Malignant Lesions >5mm (n=98) | False positive | 26 lesions |
| Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Malignant Lesions >5mm (n=98) | Total true | 53 lesions |
| Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Malignant Lesions >5mm (n=98) | Total false | 45 lesions |
| Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Malignant Lesions >5mm (n=98) | True negative | 16 lesions |
| Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Malignant Lesions >5mm (n=98) | False negative | 19 lesions |
| PositronEmissionTomography/MagneticResonanceImaging (PET/MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Malignant Lesions >5mm (n=98) | True negative | 32 lesions |
| PositronEmissionTomography/MagneticResonanceImaging (PET/MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Malignant Lesions >5mm (n=98) | False negative | 10 lesions |
| PositronEmissionTomography/MagneticResonanceImaging (PET/MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Malignant Lesions >5mm (n=98) | True positive | 48 lesions |
| PositronEmissionTomography/MagneticResonanceImaging (PET/MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Malignant Lesions >5mm (n=98) | Total true | 80 lesions |
| PositronEmissionTomography/MagneticResonanceImaging (PET/MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Malignant Lesions >5mm (n=98) | False positive | 8 lesions |
| PositronEmissionTomography/MagneticResonanceImaging (PET/MRI) | Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in Patients With Malignant Lesions >5mm (n=98) | Total false | 18 lesions |