4.7 Article

[F-18]-fluoroethylcholine combined in-line PET-CT scan for detection of lymph-node metastasis in high risk prostate cancer patients prior to radical prostatectomy: Preliminary results from a prospective histology based study

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 46, 期 2, 页码 449-455

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2009.11.008

关键词

Prostate cancer; Lymph node metastasis; Staging; Imaging; PET-CT; Extended lymphadenectomy

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic potential of PET/CT using ([F-18]fluorethylcholine (FEC) for lymph node (LN) staging in high risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients prior to radical prostatectomy (RP). Patients and methods: Twenty patients with localized PCa and >= 20% LN risk according to a published nomogram were prospectively enrolled. FEC PET/CT was done minimum 14 d after prostate biopsy. Afterwards, open RP and extended pelvic LN dissection (ePLND) was performed. Clinical stage, Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) and biopsy Gleason Grading were assessed and histopathological evaluation of the RP-specimens and dissected LN has been performed. Results from PET/CT were compared with LN metastasis according to their anatomical site. Results: Overall, 285 LN have been removed with a mean number of 15 nodes per patient (7-26). Of the 20 patients, 9 men were LN positive (45%), which corresponds to 31 positive LN with a mean size of 7 mm (0.8-12 mm). Dissection of the obturator fossa, external iliac artery/vein and internal iliac artery/vein revealed 36%, 48% and 16% of positive LN, respectively. FEC PET/CT did not detect one single positive LN, thus was false-negative in 31 metastasis and true negative in 254 LN. Conclusion: Based on our results which confirmed experience from previous studies, FEC PET/CT scan did not prove to be useful for LN staging in localized PCa prior to treatment and should thus not be applied if clinically occult metastatic disease is suspected. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
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