Cargando…

Target volume definition in high-risk prostate cancer patients using sentinel node SPECT/CT and (18) F-choline PET/CT

BACKGROUND: To assess the influence of sentinel lymph nodes (SNs) SPECT/CT and (18) F-choline ((18) F-FCH) PET/CT in radiotherapy (RT) treatment planning for prostate cancer patients with a high-risk for lymph node (LN) involvement. METHODS: Twenty high-risk prostate cancer patients underwent a pelv...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vees, Hansjörg, Steiner, Charles, Dipasquale, Giovanna, Chouiter, Amine, Zilli, Thomas, Velazquez, Michel, Namy, Sophie, Ratib, Osman, Buchegger, Franz, Miralbell, Raymond
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3561224/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22873771
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-7-134
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: To assess the influence of sentinel lymph nodes (SNs) SPECT/CT and (18) F-choline ((18) F-FCH) PET/CT in radiotherapy (RT) treatment planning for prostate cancer patients with a high-risk for lymph node (LN) involvement. METHODS: Twenty high-risk prostate cancer patients underwent a pelvic SPECT acquisition following a transrectal ultrasound guided injection of (99m)Tc-Nanocoll into the prostate. In all patients but one an (18) F-FCH PET/CT for RT treatment planning was performed. SPECT studies were coregistered with the respective abdominal CTs. Pelvic SNs localized on SPECT/CT and LN metastases detected by (18) F-FCH PET/CT were compared to standard pelvic clinical target volumes (CTV). RESULTS: A total of 104 pelvic SNs were identified on SPECT/CT (mean 5.2 SNs/patient; range 1–10). Twenty-seven SNs were located outside the standard pelvic CTV, 17 in the proximal common iliac and retroperitoneal regions above S1, 9 in the pararectal fat and 1 in the inguinal region. SPECT/CT succeeded to optimize the definition of the CTV and treatment plans in 6/20 patients due to the presence of pararectal SNs located outside the standard treatment volume. (18) F-FCH PET/CT identified abnormal tracer uptake in the iliac LN region in 2/19 patients. These abnormal LNs were negative on SPECT/CT suggesting a potential blockade of lymphatic drainage by metastatic LNs with a high tumour burden. CONCLUSIONS: Multimodality imaging which combines SPECT/CT prostate lymphoscintigraphy and (18) F-FCH PET/CT identified SNs outside standard pelvic CTVs or highly suspicious pelvic LNs in 40% of high-risk prostate cancer patients, highlighting the potential impact of this approach in RT treatment planning.