Cargando…

18-Fluoride labeled sodium fluoride positron emission tomography with computer tomography: the impact of pretreatment staging in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer

BACKGROUND: 18-Fluoride labeled sodium fluoride (Na-18-F) positron emission tomography with computer tomography (PET/CT) has a better sensitivity and specificity than whole body bone scan (WBBS) in detecting osseous metastatic prostate cancer. We performed a pilot study of 20 men to examine what lev...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Harley, Simon JD., Hoffmann, Richard, Bartholomeusz, Dylan, Sutherland, Peter, Chatterton, Barry, Kitchener, Michael, Takhar, Prab, Tsopelas, Chris, Fuller, Andrew, Wells, Richard, Singh-Rai, Raj, Bolt, John
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Asian Pacific Prostate Society 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6004619/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29922632
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prnil.2017.12.002
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: 18-Fluoride labeled sodium fluoride (Na-18-F) positron emission tomography with computer tomography (PET/CT) has a better sensitivity and specificity than whole body bone scan (WBBS) in detecting osseous metastatic prostate cancer. We performed a pilot study of 20 men to examine what level of impact Na-18-F PET/CT has on management plans when used for staging newly diagnosed prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty men were prospectively enrolled into the study in South Australia. Men were eligible if they had newly diagnosed, untreated, and biopsy-confirmed intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer (D'Amico classification). WBBS and Na-18-F PET/CT scans were performed within 1 week of each other. Following review of the WBBS, treatment type and intent was documented by the treating urologist. The Na-18-F PET/CT scan was then reviewed. The impact of the Na-18-F PET/CT was measured on whether treatment modality or intent was subsequently altered: high impact = treatment intent or modality was changed; medium impact = treatment modality was modified; low impact = no change in treatment. RESULTS: In 18 men (90%), the WBBS and Na-18-F PET/CT were negative for osseous metastases. In one man (5%), the WBBS demonstrated widespread osseous metastases which were similarly demonstrated on the Na-18-F PET/CT. One man (5%) had a normal WBBS; however, the Na-18-F PET/CT demonstrated widespread osseous metastases. Subsequently, in 19 men (95%), the results of the two scans were congruent and the addition of the Na-18-F PET/CT scan demonstrated a low impact on management. In one man (5%), the addition of the Na-18-F PET/CT had a high impact as treatment type and intent was altered. CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot study is the first of its kind in Australia, and our findings suggest that Na-18-F PET/CT is a safe and feasible modality for staging prostate cancer. However, its true impact on prostate cancer management warrants further investigation.