Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Discordance rate between radiolabelled choline PET/CT and bone scintigraphy in detecting bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Clinical and Translational Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of the study was to systematically review published data and perform a meta-analysis about the discordance rate between radiolabelled choline PET/CT and bone scintigraphy (BS) in detecting bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer (PCa). A comprehensive literature search of studies or subsets of studies published through November 2014 including information on the comparison among radiolabelled choline PET/CT and bone scintigraphy in PCa patients was carried out. A meta-analysis was performed in order to calculate the pooled discordance rate among these methods in detecting bone metastases on a per patient-based analysis. Twelve articles were selected. The pooled discordance rate among radiolabelled choline PET/CT and BS in detecting bone metastases was 10.9 % (95 % confidence interval 6.3–16.7 %). Discordant findings were due to radiolabelled choline positive and BS negative or inconclusive findings, but BS positive and radiolabelled choline-negative findings also occurred. We discuss the possible causes of discordant findings. Discordance rate between radiolabelled choline PET/CT and BS in detecting bone metastases in PCa patients is not negligible and both methods are useful in this setting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Marta GN, Hanna SA, Fernandes da Silva JL, Carvalho Hde A (2013) Screening for prostate cancer: an updated review. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 13:101–108

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, Mason M, Matveev V, Wiegel T, Zattoni F, Mottet N, European Association of Urology (2014) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 65:124–137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, Mason M, Matveev V, Wiegel T, Zattoni F, Mottet N, European Association of Urology (2014) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 65:467–479

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Prostate Cancer. Version 1.2015. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf

  5. Rigaud J, Tiguert R, Le Normand L, Karam G, Glemain P, Buzelin JM, Bouchot O (2002) Prognostic value of bone scan in patients with metastatic prostate cancer treated initially with androgen deprivation therapy. J Urol 168:1423–1426

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Caldarella C, Treglia G, Giordano A, Giovanella L (2013) When to perform positron emission tomography/computed tomography or radionuclide bone scan in patients with recently diagnosed prostate cancer. Cancer Manag Res 5:123–131

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Evangelista L, Cervino AR, Burei M, Gregianin M, Saladini G, Marzola MC, Chondrogianis S, Rubello D (2013) Comparative studies of radiolabeled choline positron emission tomography, histology of primary tumor and other imaging modalities in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Transl Imaging 1:99–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Shen G, Deng H, Hu S, Jia Z (2014) Comparison of choline-PET/CT, MRI, SPECT, and bone scintigraphy in the diagnosis of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Skeletal Radiol 43:1503–1513

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. von Eyben FE, Kairemo K (2014) Meta-analysis of (11)C-choline and (18)F-choline PET/CT for management of patients with prostate cancer. Nucl Med Commun 35:221–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Umbehr MH, Müntener M, Hany T, Sulser T, Bachmann LM (2013) The role of 11C-choline and 18F-fluorocholine positron emission tomography (PET) and PET/CT in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 64:106–117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Evangelista L, Guttilla A, Zattoni F, Muzzio PC, Zattoni F (2013) Utility of choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography for lymph node involvement identification in intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 63:1040–1048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Evangelista L, Zattoni F, Guttilla A, Saladini G, Zattoni F, Colletti PM, Rubello D (2013) Choline PET or PET/CT and biochemical relapse of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Nucl Med 38:305–314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Treglia G, Giovannini E, Di Franco D, Calcagni ML, Rufini V, Picchio M, Giordano A (2012) The role of positron emission tomography using carbon-11 and fluorine-18 choline in tumors other than prostate cancer: a systematic review. Ann Nucl Med 26:451–461

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Podo F (1999) Tumour phospholipid metabolism. NMR Biomed 12:413–439

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. DeGrado TR, Baldwin SW, Wang S, Orr MD, Liao RP, Friedman HS, Reiman R, Price DT, Coleman RE (2001) Synthesis and evaluation of (18)F-labeled choline analogs as oncologic PET tracers. J Nucl Med 42:1805–1814

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315:629–634

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kotzerke J, Prang J, Neumaier B, Volkmer B, Guhlmann A, Kleinschmidt K, Hautmann R, Reske SN (2000) Experience with carbon-11 choline positron emission tomography in prostate carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med 27:1415–1419

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. de Jong IJ, Pruim J, Elsinga PH, Vaalburg W, Mensink HJ (2003) 11C-choline positron emission tomography for the evaluation after treatment of localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 44:32–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Fuccio C, Castellucci P, Schiavina R, Guidalotti PL, Gavaruzzi G, Montini GC, Nanni C, Marzola MC, Rubello D, Fanti S (2012) Role of 11C-choline PET/CT in the re-staging of prostate cancer patients with biochemical relapse and negative results at bone scintigraphy. Eur J Radiol 81:e893–e896

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fuccio C, Castellucci P, Schiavina R, Santi I, Allegri V, Pettinato V, Boschi S, Martorana G, Al-Nahhas A, Rubello D, Fanti S (2010) Role of 11C-choline PET/CT in the restaging of prostate cancer patients showing a single lesion on bone scintigraphy. Ann Nucl Med. 24:485–492

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Poulsen MH, Bouchelouche K, Høilund-Carlsen PF, Petersen H, Gerke O, Steffansen SI, Marcussen N, Svolgaard N, Vach W, Geertsen U, Walter S (2012) [18F]fluoromethylcholine (FCH) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for lymph node staging of prostate cancer: a prospective study of 210 patients. BJU Int 110:1666–1671

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Giovacchini G, Picchio M, Coradeschi E, Bettinardi V, Gianolli L, Scattoni V, Cozzarini C, Di Muzio N, Rigatti P, Fazio F, Messa C (2010) Predictive factors of [(11)C]choline PET/CT in patients with biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37:301–309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tuncel M, Souvatzoglou M, Herrmann K, Stollfuss J, Schuster T, Weirich G, Wester HJ, Schwaiger M, Krause BJ (2008) [(11)C]Choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography for staging and restaging of patients with advanced prostate cancer. Nucl Med Biol 35:689–695

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Poulsen MH, Petersen H, Høilund-Carlsen PF, Jakobsen JS, Gerke O, Karstoft J, Steffansen SI, Walter S (2014) Spine metastases in prostate cancer: comparison of technetium-99m-MDP whole-body bone scintigraphy, [(18) F]choline positron emission tomography(PET)/computed tomography (CT) and [(18) F]NaF PET/CT. BJU Int 114:818–823

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Garcia JR, Moreno C, Valls E, Cozar P, Bassa P, Soler M, Alvarez-Moro FJ, Moragas M, Riera E (2014) Diagnostic performance of bone scintigraphy and (11)C-Choline PET/CT in the detection of bone metastases in patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol. doi:10.1016/j.remn.2014.08.001

    Google Scholar 

  26. Picchio M, Spinapolice EG, Fallanca F, Crivellaro C, Giovacchini G, Gianolli L, Messa C (2012) [11C]Choline PET/CT detection of bone metastases in patients with PSA progression after primary treatment for prostate cancer: comparison with bone scintigraphy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 39:13–26

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Schillaci O, Calabria F, Tavolozza M, Caracciolo CR, Finazzi Agrò E, Miano R, Orlacchio A, Danieli R, Simonetti G (2012) Influence of PSA, PSA velocity and PSA doubling time on contrast-enhanced 18F-choline PET/CT detection rate in patients with rising PSA after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 39:589–596

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. McCarthy M, Siew T, Campbell A, Lenzo N, Spry N, Vivian J, Morandeau L (2011) 18F-Fluoromethylcholine (FCH) PET imaging in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer: prospective comparison with standard imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38:14–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Beauregard JM, Williams SG, Degrado TR, Roselt P, Hicks RJ (2010) Pilot comparison of F-fluorocholine and F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT with conventional imaging in prostate cancer. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 54:325–332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Beheshti M, Imamovic L, Broinger G, Vali R, Waldenberger P, Stoiber F, Nader M, Gruy B, Janetschek G, Langsteger W (2010) 18F choline PET/CT in the preoperative staging of prostate cancer in patients with intermediate or high risk of extracapsular disease: a prospective study of 130 patients. Radiology 254:925–933

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kwee SA, Coel MN, Ly BH, Lim J (2009) (18)F-Choline PET/CT imaging of RECIST measurable lesions in hormone refractory prostate cancer. Ann Nucl Med 23:541–548

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Husarik DB, Miralbell R, Dubs M, John H, Giger OT, Gelet A, Cservenyàk T, Hany TF (2008) Evaluation of [(18)F]-choline PET/CT for staging and restaging of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 35:253–263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Cimitan M, Bortolus R, Morassut S, Canzonieri V, Garbeglio A, Baresic T, Borsatti E, Drigo A, Trovò MG (2006) [18F]fluorocholine PET/CT imaging for the detection of recurrent prostate cancer at PSA relapse: experience in 100 consecutive patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 33:1387–1398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Rinnab L, Mottaghy FM, Blumstein NM, Reske SN, Hautmann RE, Hohl K, Möller P, Wiegel T, Kuefer R, Gschwend JE (2007) Evaluation of [11C]-choline positron-emission/computed tomography in patients with increasing prostate-specific antigen levels after primary treatment for prostate cancer. BJU Int 100:786–793

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Castellucci P, Fuccio C, Nanni C, Santi I, Rizzello A, Lodi F, Franceschelli A, Martorana G, Manferrari F, Fanti S (2009) Influence of trigger PSA and PSA kinetics on 11C-Choline PET/CT detection rate in patients with biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy. J Nucl Med 50:1394–1400

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kwee SA, Coel MN, Lim J (2012) Detection of recurrent prostate cancer with 18F-fluorocholine PET/CT in relation to PSA level at the time of imaging. Ann Nucl Med 26:501–507

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Treglia G, Ceriani L, Sadeghi R, Giovacchini G, Giovanella L (2014) Relationship between prostate-specific antigen kinetics and detection rate of radiolabelled choline PET/CT in restaging prostate cancer patients: a meta-analysis. Clin Chem Lab Med 52:725–733

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Sadeghi R, Treglia G (2013) Meta-analyses and systematic reviews on PET and PET/CT in oncology: the state of the art. Clin Transl Imaging 1:73–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Beheshti M, Vali R, Waldenberger P, Fitz F, Nader M, Hammer J, Loidl W, Pirich C, Fogelman I, Langsteger W (2009) The use of F-18 choline PET in the assessment of bone metastases in prostate cancer: correlation with morphological changes on CT. Mol Imaging Biol 11:446–454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Beheshti M, Langsteger W, Fogelman I (2009) Prostate cancer: role of SPECT and PET in imaging bone metastases. Semin Nucl Med 39:396–407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Beheshti M, Langsteger W (2012) Choline PET/CT compared with bone scintigraphy in the detection of bone metastases in prostate cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 39:910–911

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and animal studies

For this type of study formal consent is not required. This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET/CT Center, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, via Ospedale, 12, 6500, Bellinzona, Switzerland

    Giorgio Treglia, Luca Ceriani & Luca Giovanella

  2. Centro Polidiagnostico Medicina Nucleare, C.P.M.N. srl, Catania, Italy

    Carlo Vigneri

  3. Nuclear Medicine Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

    Ramin Sadeghi

  4. Radiotherapy and Nuclear Medicine Unit, Oncological Institute of Veneto IOV-IRCCS, Padua, Italy

    Laura Evangelista

Authors
  1. Giorgio Treglia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carlo Vigneri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ramin Sadeghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Laura Evangelista
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Luca Ceriani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Luca Giovanella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giorgio Treglia.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Treglia, G., Vigneri, C., Sadeghi, R. et al. Discordance rate between radiolabelled choline PET/CT and bone scintigraphy in detecting bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Transl Imaging 3, 133–140 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-015-0107-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-015-0107-1

Keywords

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy