4.7 Article

Clinical impact of 18F-choline PET/CT in patients with recurrent prostate cancer

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-012-2083-2

Keywords

F-18-CholinePET/CT; Recurrent prostate cancer; Clinical impact

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To investigate the clinical value of F-18-fluorocholine PET/CT (CH-PET/CT) in treatment decisions in patients with recurrent prostate cancer (rPCA). The study was a retrospective evaluation of 156 patients with rPCA and CH-PET/CT for restaging. Questionnaires for each examination were sent to the referring physicians 14-64 months after examination. Questions included information regarding initial extent of disease, curative first-line treatment, and the treatment plan before and after CH-PET/CT. Additionally, PSA values at diagnosis, after initial treatment, before CH-PET/CT and at the end of follow-up were also obtained from the questionnaires. Mean follow-up was 42 months. The mean Gleason score was 6.9 at initial diagnosis. Initial treatment was: radical prostatectomy in 110 patients, radiotherapy in 39, and combined prostatectomy and radiotherapy in 7. Median PSA values before CH-PET/CT and at the end of follow-up were 3.40 ng/ml and 0.91 ng/ml. PSA levels remained stable, decreased or were below measurable levels in 108 patients. PSA levels increased in 48 patients. In 75 of the 156 patients (48%) the treatment plan was changed due to the CH-PET/CT findings. In 33 patients the therapeutic plan was changed from palliative treatment to treatment with curative intent. In 15 patients treatment was changed from curative to palliative. In 8 patients treatment was changed from curative to another strategy and in 2 patients from one palliative strategy to another. In 17 patients the treatment plan was adapted. CH-PET/CT has an important impact on the therapeutic strategy in patients with rPCA and can help to determine an appropriate treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available