Cargando…

Detection of lymph node metastases in patients with prostate cancer: Comparing conventional and digital [(18)F]‐fluorocholine PET‐CT using histopathology as a reference

BACKGROUND: Positron emission tomography‐computed tomography (PET‐CT) with [(18)F]‐fluorocholine (FCH) is used to detect and stage metastatic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer. Improvements to hardware and software have recently been made. We compared the capability of detecting regional...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bjöersdorff, Mimmi, Puterman, Christopher, Oddstig, Jenny, Amidi, Jennifer, Zackrisson, Sophia, Kjölhede, Henrik, Bjartell, Anders, Wollmer, Per, Trägårdh, Elin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9805227/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35866190
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cpf.12770
_version_ 1784862295254368256
author Bjöersdorff, Mimmi
Puterman, Christopher
Oddstig, Jenny
Amidi, Jennifer
Zackrisson, Sophia
Kjölhede, Henrik
Bjartell, Anders
Wollmer, Per
Trägårdh, Elin
author_facet Bjöersdorff, Mimmi
Puterman, Christopher
Oddstig, Jenny
Amidi, Jennifer
Zackrisson, Sophia
Kjölhede, Henrik
Bjartell, Anders
Wollmer, Per
Trägårdh, Elin
author_sort Bjöersdorff, Mimmi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Positron emission tomography‐computed tomography (PET‐CT) with [(18)F]‐fluorocholine (FCH) is used to detect and stage metastatic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer. Improvements to hardware and software have recently been made. We compared the capability of detecting regional lymph node metastases using conventional and digital silicon photomultiplier (SiPM)‐based PET‐CT technology for FCH. Extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) histopathology was used as a reference method. METHODS: The study retrospectively examined 177 patients with intermediate or high‐risk prostate cancer who had undergone staging with FCH PET‐CT before ePLND. Images were obtained with either the conventional Philips Gemini PET‐CT (n = 93) or the digital SiPM‐based GE Discovery MI PET‐CT (n = 84) and compared. RESULTS: Images that were obtained using the Philips Gemini PET‐CT system showed 19 patients (20%) with suspected lymph node metastases, whereas the GE Discovery MI PET‐CT revealed 36 such patients (43%). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 0.3, 0.84, 0.47, and 0.72 for the Philips Gemini, while they were 0.58, 0.62, 0.31, and 0.83 for the GE Discovery MI, respectively. The areas under the curves in a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis were similar between the two PET‐CT systems (0.57 for Philips Gemini and 0.58 for GE Discovery MI, p = 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: Marked differences in sensitivity and specificity were found for the different PET‐CT systems, although the overall diagnostic performance was similar. These differences are probably due to differences in both hardware and software, including reconstruction algorithms, and should be considered when new technology is introduced.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9805227
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98052272023-01-06 Detection of lymph node metastases in patients with prostate cancer: Comparing conventional and digital [(18)F]‐fluorocholine PET‐CT using histopathology as a reference Bjöersdorff, Mimmi Puterman, Christopher Oddstig, Jenny Amidi, Jennifer Zackrisson, Sophia Kjölhede, Henrik Bjartell, Anders Wollmer, Per Trägårdh, Elin Clin Physiol Funct Imaging Original Articles BACKGROUND: Positron emission tomography‐computed tomography (PET‐CT) with [(18)F]‐fluorocholine (FCH) is used to detect and stage metastatic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer. Improvements to hardware and software have recently been made. We compared the capability of detecting regional lymph node metastases using conventional and digital silicon photomultiplier (SiPM)‐based PET‐CT technology for FCH. Extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) histopathology was used as a reference method. METHODS: The study retrospectively examined 177 patients with intermediate or high‐risk prostate cancer who had undergone staging with FCH PET‐CT before ePLND. Images were obtained with either the conventional Philips Gemini PET‐CT (n = 93) or the digital SiPM‐based GE Discovery MI PET‐CT (n = 84) and compared. RESULTS: Images that were obtained using the Philips Gemini PET‐CT system showed 19 patients (20%) with suspected lymph node metastases, whereas the GE Discovery MI PET‐CT revealed 36 such patients (43%). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 0.3, 0.84, 0.47, and 0.72 for the Philips Gemini, while they were 0.58, 0.62, 0.31, and 0.83 for the GE Discovery MI, respectively. The areas under the curves in a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis were similar between the two PET‐CT systems (0.57 for Philips Gemini and 0.58 for GE Discovery MI, p = 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: Marked differences in sensitivity and specificity were found for the different PET‐CT systems, although the overall diagnostic performance was similar. These differences are probably due to differences in both hardware and software, including reconstruction algorithms, and should be considered when new technology is introduced. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-08-08 2022-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9805227/ /pubmed/35866190 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cpf.12770 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Scandinavian Society of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Bjöersdorff, Mimmi
Puterman, Christopher
Oddstig, Jenny
Amidi, Jennifer
Zackrisson, Sophia
Kjölhede, Henrik
Bjartell, Anders
Wollmer, Per
Trägårdh, Elin
Detection of lymph node metastases in patients with prostate cancer: Comparing conventional and digital [(18)F]‐fluorocholine PET‐CT using histopathology as a reference
title Detection of lymph node metastases in patients with prostate cancer: Comparing conventional and digital [(18)F]‐fluorocholine PET‐CT using histopathology as a reference
title_full Detection of lymph node metastases in patients with prostate cancer: Comparing conventional and digital [(18)F]‐fluorocholine PET‐CT using histopathology as a reference
title_fullStr Detection of lymph node metastases in patients with prostate cancer: Comparing conventional and digital [(18)F]‐fluorocholine PET‐CT using histopathology as a reference
title_full_unstemmed Detection of lymph node metastases in patients with prostate cancer: Comparing conventional and digital [(18)F]‐fluorocholine PET‐CT using histopathology as a reference
title_short Detection of lymph node metastases in patients with prostate cancer: Comparing conventional and digital [(18)F]‐fluorocholine PET‐CT using histopathology as a reference
title_sort detection of lymph node metastases in patients with prostate cancer: comparing conventional and digital [(18)f]‐fluorocholine pet‐ct using histopathology as a reference
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9805227/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35866190
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cpf.12770
work_keys_str_mv AT bjoersdorffmimmi detectionoflymphnodemetastasesinpatientswithprostatecancercomparingconventionalanddigital18ffluorocholinepetctusinghistopathologyasareference
AT putermanchristopher detectionoflymphnodemetastasesinpatientswithprostatecancercomparingconventionalanddigital18ffluorocholinepetctusinghistopathologyasareference
AT oddstigjenny detectionoflymphnodemetastasesinpatientswithprostatecancercomparingconventionalanddigital18ffluorocholinepetctusinghistopathologyasareference
AT amidijennifer detectionoflymphnodemetastasesinpatientswithprostatecancercomparingconventionalanddigital18ffluorocholinepetctusinghistopathologyasareference
AT zackrissonsophia detectionoflymphnodemetastasesinpatientswithprostatecancercomparingconventionalanddigital18ffluorocholinepetctusinghistopathologyasareference
AT kjolhedehenrik detectionoflymphnodemetastasesinpatientswithprostatecancercomparingconventionalanddigital18ffluorocholinepetctusinghistopathologyasareference
AT bjartellanders detectionoflymphnodemetastasesinpatientswithprostatecancercomparingconventionalanddigital18ffluorocholinepetctusinghistopathologyasareference
AT wollmerper detectionoflymphnodemetastasesinpatientswithprostatecancercomparingconventionalanddigital18ffluorocholinepetctusinghistopathologyasareference
AT tragardhelin detectionoflymphnodemetastasesinpatientswithprostatecancercomparingconventionalanddigital18ffluorocholinepetctusinghistopathologyasareference