4.3 Article

[11C]Choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography for staging and restaging of patients with advanced prostate cancer

期刊

NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY
卷 35, 期 6, 页码 689-695

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2008.05.006

关键词

advanced prostate cancer; bone metastases; choline; PET/CT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: To evaluate [C-11]Choline positron emission tomography (PET/computed tomography (CT) for staging and restaging of patients with advanced prostate cancer and to compare the diagnostic performance of PET, CT and PET/CT. Methods: Forth-five consecutive patients with advanced prostate cancer underwent [C-11]Choline-PET/CT between 5/2007 and 2/2006. Results: Overall. 295 lesions were detected: PET alone, 178 lesions; diagnostic CT, 22 1 lesions; PET/CT (low-close CT), 272 lesions; PET/ CT (diagnostic CT). 295 lesions. Two thirds of the lesions, were located ill the bone: one third ill the prostate. lymph nodes, periprostatic tissue and soft tissue (lung, liver). The use of diagnostic CT did not result ill a statistically significant difference with respect to lesion The use of diagnostic localization certainly and lesion characterization (P=.063, P=.063), PET-negative bill PET/CT-positive lesions were mostly localized in the bone (78%, 91/117) as were PET-positive and CT-negative lesions (72%, 53/74). Of the latter, 91% (48/53) represented bone marrow and 9% (5/53) cortical involvement, Conclusions: Staging and restaging with [C-11]Choline PET/CT in patients with advanced prostate cancer improve the assessment of local and regional recurrent as well as metastatic disease including skeletal manifestations. [C-11]Choline PET/CT (with a low-dose CT) results in improved localiziation and lesion characterization. [C-11]Choline PET/CT provides ill added value for skeletal manifestations. [C-11]Choline PET/CT changed disease management in 11 (24%) of 45 patients with advanced Prostate cancer. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据