Skip to content

Clinical Value of FEC-PET Combined With Endorectal MRI for Pre-therapeutic Staging of Prostate Cancer

Clinical Value of [18]Fluoroethylcholine Positron-Emission-Tomography Combined With Endorectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging by Software Fusion for Pre-therapeutic Staging of Prostate Cancer

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00520546
Acronym
FEC-PET/MRI
Enrollment
44
Registered
2007-08-24
Start date
2007-12-31
Completion date
2011-06-30
Last updated
2012-06-20

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Prostate Cancer

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

OTHER18F-Ethylcholine Positron Emission Tomography (FEC-PET)

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.

OTHEREndorectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging (1.5Tesla) (eMRI)

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

Dr. Markus Hartenbach
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
NA
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
MALE
Age
50 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

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

MeasureTime frameDescription
Number of Participants With Positive or Negative Results in PET, MRI or PET/MRI for Prostate Cancer Compared to Histological Findingswithin < 2 weeks after PET/MRIPET 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

MeasureTime frameDescription
Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All Patientswithin < 2 weeks after PET/MRIPET 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/MRIPET 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/MRIPET 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

ArmCount
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
Total44

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000
Overall Studyfailed radiopharmaceut. synthesis of FEC5
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject1

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicFEC-PET/eMRI
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
0 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
21 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
23 Participants
Age Continuous65 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 typeEG000
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
— / —
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 39
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 39

Outcome results

Primary

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).

ArmMeasureGroupValue (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 FindingsTrue Positive36 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 FindingsFalse Positive1 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 FindingsTrue Negative0 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 FindingsFalse Negative1 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 FindingsTotal True36 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 FindingsTotal False2 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 FindingsTotal False11 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 FindingsTrue Positive26 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 FindingsFalse Negative11 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 FindingsTotal True27 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 FindingsFalse Positive1 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 FindingsTrue Negative0 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 FindingsFalse Positive0 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 FindingsTrue Negative1 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 FindingsTotal False2 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 FindingsFalse Negative2 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 FindingsTrue Positive35 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 FindingsTotal True36 participants
Comparison: results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: 0.052695% CI: [86, 100]Fisher Exact
Comparison: results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: 0.052695% CI: [0, 98]Fisher Exact
Comparison: results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: 0.052695% CI: [82, 99]Fisher Exact
Comparison: results from MRI as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [53, 84]Fisher Exact
Comparison: results from MRI as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0, 98]Fisher Exact
Comparison: results from MRI as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [51, 83]Fisher Exact
Comparison: results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: 0.004395% CI: [82, 99]Fisher Exact
Comparison: results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: 0.004395% CI: [3, 100]Fisher Exact
Comparison: results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: 0.004395% CI: [82, 99]Fisher Exact
Secondary

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).

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
[18F]Fluoroethylcholine Positron-Emission-Tomography (FEC-PET)Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All PatientsTrue positive59 lesions
[18F]Fluoroethylcholine Positron-Emission-Tomography (FEC-PET)Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All PatientsFalse positive26 lesions
[18F]Fluoroethylcholine Positron-Emission-Tomography (FEC-PET)Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All PatientsTrue negative19 lesions
[18F]Fluoroethylcholine Positron-Emission-Tomography (FEC-PET)Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All PatientsFalse negative24 lesions
[18F]Fluoroethylcholine Positron-Emission-Tomography (FEC-PET)Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All PatientsTotal true78 lesions
[18F]Fluoroethylcholine Positron-Emission-Tomography (FEC-PET)Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All PatientsTotal false50 lesions
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All PatientsTotal false70 lesions
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All PatientsTrue positive40 lesions
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All PatientsFalse negative43 lesions
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All PatientsTotal true58 lesions
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All PatientsFalse positive27 lesions
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All PatientsTrue negative18 lesions
PositronEmissionTomography/MagneticResonanceImaging (PET/MRI)Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All PatientsFalse positive8 lesions
PositronEmissionTomography/MagneticResonanceImaging (PET/MRI)Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All PatientsTrue negative37 lesions
PositronEmissionTomography/MagneticResonanceImaging (PET/MRI)Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All PatientsTotal false36 lesions
PositronEmissionTomography/MagneticResonanceImaging (PET/MRI)Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All PatientsFalse negative28 lesions
PositronEmissionTomography/MagneticResonanceImaging (PET/MRI)Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All PatientsTrue positive55 lesions
PositronEmissionTomography/MagneticResonanceImaging (PET/MRI)Lesion Based Analysis of FEC-PET, Endorectal MRI and Combined FEC-PET/eMRI in All PatientsTotal true92 lesions
Comparison: lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: 0.09Fisher Exact
Comparison: lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: 0.09Fisher Exact
Comparison: lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: 0.09Fisher Exact
Comparison: lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: 0.09Fisher Exact
Comparison: lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: 0.09Fisher Exact
Comparison: lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: 0.27Fisher Exact
Comparison: lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: 0.27Fisher Exact
Comparison: lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: 0.27Fisher Exact
Comparison: lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: 0.27Fisher Exact
Comparison: lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: 0.27Fisher Exact
Comparison: lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: <0.001Fisher Exact
Comparison: lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: <0.001Fisher Exact
Comparison: lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: <0.001Fisher Exact
Comparison: lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: <0.001Fisher Exact
Comparison: lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: <0.001Fisher Exact
Secondary

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)

ArmMeasureGroupValue (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 positive27 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 positive5 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 negative8 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 negative3 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 true35 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 false8 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 false17 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 positive22 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 negative8 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 true26 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 positive9 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 negative4 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 positive1 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 negative11 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 false5 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 negative4 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 positive27 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 true38 lesions
Comparison: Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: <0.001Fisher Exact
Comparison: Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: <0.001Fisher Exact
Comparison: Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: <0.001Fisher Exact
Comparison: Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: <0.001Fisher Exact
Comparison: Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: <0.001Fisher Exact
Comparison: Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: 0.53Fisher Exact
Comparison: Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: 0.53Fisher Exact
Comparison: Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: 0.53Fisher Exact
Comparison: Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: 0.53Fisher Exact
Comparison: Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: 0.53Fisher Exact
Comparison: Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: <0.001Fisher Exact
Comparison: Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: <0.001Fisher Exact
Comparison: Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: <0.001Fisher Exact
Comparison: Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: <0.001Fisher Exact
Comparison: Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: <0.001Fisher Exact
Secondary

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)

ArmMeasureGroupValue (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 positive24 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 negative18 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 negative8 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 true66 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 false32 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 positive48 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 positive37 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 positive26 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 true53 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 false45 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 negative16 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 negative19 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 negative32 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 negative10 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 positive48 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 true80 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 positive8 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 false18 lesions
Comparison: Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: 0.002Fisher Exact
Comparison: Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: 0.002Fisher Exact
Comparison: Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: 0.002Fisher Exact
Comparison: Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: 0.002Fisher Exact
Comparison: Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: 0.002Fisher Exact
Comparison: Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: 0.41Fisher Exact
Comparison: Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: 0.41Fisher Exact
Comparison: Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: 0.41Fisher Exact
Comparison: Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: 0.41Fisher Exact
Comparison: Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: 0.41Fisher Exact
Comparison: Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: <0.001Fisher Exact
Comparison: Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: <0.001Fisher Exact
Comparison: Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: <0.001Fisher Exact
Comparison: Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: <0.001Fisher Exact
Comparison: Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental.p-value: <0.001Fisher Exact

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026