Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prostate cancer: a comparative study of 11C-choline PET and MR imaging combined with proton MR spectroscopy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Prostate cancer is difficult to visualise in its early stages using current imaging technology. The present study aimed to clarify the utility of 11C-choline PET for localising and evaluating cancer lesions in patients with prostate cancer by conducting a prospective comparison with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging combined with proton MR spectroscopy.

Methods

PET and MR imaging combined with proton MR spectroscopy were performed in 20 patients with prostate cancer. Correlations among the metabolite ratio of choline + creatine to citrate (Cho+Cr/Ci) on MR spectroscopy, serum PSA and maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax) of 11C-choline were assessed. The location of the primary lesion was assessed by the site of SUVmax and the laterality of the highest Cho+Cr/Ci ratio and confirmed by examination of surgical pathology specimens (n=16).

Results

PET exhibited a diagnostic sensitivity of 100% (20/20) for primary lesions, while the sensitivities of MR imaging and MR spectroscopy were 60% (12/20) and 65% (13/20), respectively. Weak linear correlations were observed between SUVmax and serum PSA (r=0.52, p<0.05), and between SUVmax and Cho+Cr/Ci ratio (r=0.49, p<0.05). Regarding the localisation of main primary lesions, PET results agreed with pathological findings in 13 patients (81%) (κ=0.59), while MR spectroscopy results were in accordance with pathological findings in eight patients (50%) (κ=0.11).

Conclusion

This preliminary study suggests that 11C-choline PET may provide more accurate information regarding the localisation of main primary prostate cancer lesions than MR imaging/MR spectroscopy. A further clinical study of 11C-choline PET in a large number of patients suspected of prostate cancer will be necessary to determine the clinical utility of 11C-choline PET in patients who clinically require biopsy.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3a–d
Fig. 4a–d

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wefer AE, Hricak H, Vigneron DB, Coakley FV, Lu Y, Wefer J, et al. Sextant localization of prostate cancer: comparison of sextant biopsy, magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging with step section histology. J Urol 2000;164:400–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Coakley FV, Kurhanewicz J, Lu Y, Jones KD, Swanson MG, Chang SD, et al. Prostate cancer tumor volume: measurement with endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 2002;223:91–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Yu KK, Hricak H, Alagappan R, Chernoff DM, Bacchetti P, Zaloudek CJ. Detection of extracapsular extension of prostate carcinoma with endorectal and phased-array coil MR imaging: multivariate feature analysis. Radiology 1997;202:697–702.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Thornbury JR, Ornstein DK, Choyke PL, Langlotz CP, Weinreb JC. Prostate cancer: what is the future role for imaging?. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:17–21.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Inoue T, Oriuchi N, Tomiyoshi K, Endo K. A shifting landscape: what will be next FDG in PET oncology? Ann Nucl Med 2002;16:1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Liu IJ, Zafar MB, Lai YH, Segall GM, Terris MK. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography studies in diagnosis and staging of clinically organ-confined prostate cancer. Urology 2001;57:108–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hoh CK, Seltzer MA, Franklin J, deKernion JB, Phelps ME, Belldegrun A. Positron emission tomography in urological oncology. J Urol 1998;159:347–56.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Negendank W. Studies of human tumors by MRS: a review. NMR Biomed 1992;5:303–24.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Warden CH, Friedkin M. Regulation of choline kinase activity and phosphatidylcholine biosynthesis by mitogenic growth factors in 3T3 fibroblasts. J Biol Chem 1985;260:6006–11.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hara T, Kosaka N, Kishi H. PET imaging of prostate cancer using carbon-11-choline. J Nucl Med 1998;39:990–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Shinoura N, Nishijima M, Hara T, Haisa T, Yamamoto H, Fujii K, et al. Brain tumors: detection with C-11 choline PET. Radiology 1997;202:497–503.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hara T, Kosaka N, Kishi H. Development of F-fluoroethylcholine for cancer imaging with PET: synthesis, biochemistry, and prostate cancer imaging. J Nucl Med 2002;43:187–99.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sobin LH, Wittekind C, editors. TNM classification of malignant tumours. 6th ed. New York: Wiley-Liss; 2002. p 184–7.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hara T, Kosaka N, Shinoura N, Kondo T. PET imaging of brain tumor with [methyl-11C]choline. J Nucl Med 1997;38:842–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kundel HL, Polansky M. Measurement of observer agreement. Radiology 2003;228:303–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Floyd CE. Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;166:773–8.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Landis JR, Kock GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1997;33:159–74.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron DB, Hricak H, Narayan P, Carroll P, Nelson SJ. Three-dimensional H-1 MR spectroscopic imaging of the in situ human prostate with high (0.24–0.7-cm3) spatial resolution. Radiology 1996;198:795–805.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Partin AW, Carter HB, Chan DW, Epstein JI, Oesterling JE, Rock RC, et al. Prostate specific antigen in the staging of localized prostate cancer: influence of tumor differentiation, tumor volume and benign hyperplasia. J Urol 1990;143:747–52.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gleason DF. Histopathologic grading of prostatic cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol 1992;23:273–9.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Wahl RL. Why nearly all PET of abdominal and pelvic cancers will be performed as PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2004;45:82S–95S.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sutinen E, Nurmi M, Roivainen A, Varpula M, Torvanen T, Lehikoinen P, et al. Kinetics of [11C]choline uptake in prostate cancer: a PET study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31:317–24.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sciebler ML, Schnall MD, Pollack HM, Lenkinski RE, Tomaszewski JE, Wein AJ, et al. Current role of MR imaging in the staging of adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Radiology 1993;189:339–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Janssen MJ, Huijgens PC, Bouman AA, Oe PL, Donker AJ, van der Meulen J. Citrate versus heparin anticoagulation in chronic haemodialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1993;8:1228–33.

    Google Scholar 

  25. White S, Hricak H, Forstner R, Kuhanewicz J, Vigneron DB, Zaloudek CJ, et al. Prostate cancer: effect of postbiopsy hemorrhage on interpretation of MR images. Radiology 1995;195:385–90.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ramchandani P, Schnall MD. Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate. Semin Roentgenol 1993;28:74–82.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kaji Y, Kuhanewicz J, Hricak H, Sokolov DL, Huang LR, Nelson SJ, et al. Localizing prostate cancer in the presence of postbiopsy changes on MR images: role of proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 1998;206:785–90.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rietbergen JB, Kruger AE, Hoedemaeker RF, Bangma CH, Kirkels WJ, Schroder FH. Repeat screening for prostate cancer after 1-year followup in 984 biopsied men: clinical and pathological features of detected cancer. J Urol 1998;160:2121–5.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Yokohama City University School of Medicine, 3-9 Fukuura, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama, 236-0004, Japan

    Takako Yamaguchi, Jin Lee, Nobukazu Takahashi, Takashi Oka, Kazuya Shizukuishi & Tomio Inoue

  2. Department of Urology, Yokohama City University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan

    Hiroji Uemura & Yoshinobu Kubota

  3. Department of Pathology, Yokohama City University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan

    Takeshi Sasaki

  4. Department of Pharmacy, Yokohama City University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan

    Hisashi Endou

Authors
  1. Takako Yamaguchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jin Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hiroji Uemura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Takeshi Sasaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nobukazu Takahashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Takashi Oka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kazuya Shizukuishi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hisashi Endou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yoshinobu Kubota
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Tomio Inoue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takako Yamaguchi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yamaguchi, T., Lee, J., Uemura, H. et al. Prostate cancer: a comparative study of 11C-choline PET and MR imaging combined with proton MR spectroscopy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 32, 742–748 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-004-1755-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-004-1755-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation