skip to main content

SciTech ConnectSciTech Connect

Title: Comparison of [{sup 11}C]choline Positron Emission Tomography With T2- and Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Delineating Malignant Intraprostatic Lesions

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of [{sup 11}C]choline positron emission tomography (CHOL-PET) with that of the combination of T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted (T2W/DW) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for delineating malignant intraprostatic lesions (IPLs) for guiding focal therapies and to investigate factors predicting the accuracy of CHOL-PET. Methods and Materials: This study included 21 patients who underwent CHOL-PET and T2W/DW MRI prior to radical prostatectomy. Two observers manually delineated IPL contours for each scan, and automatic IPL contours were generated on CHOL-PET based on varying proportions of the maximum standardized uptake value (SUV). IPLs identified on prostatectomy specimens defined reference standard contours. The imaging-based contours were compared with the reference standard contours using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), and sensitivity and specificity values. Factors that could potentially predict the DSC of the best contouring method were analyzed using linear models. Results: The best automatic contouring method, 60% of the maximum SUV (SUV{sub 60}) , had similar correlations (DSC: 0.59) with the manual PET contours (DSC: 0.52, P=.127) and significantly better correlations than the manual MRI contours (DSC: 0.37, P<.001). The sensitivity and specificity values were 72% and 71% for SUV{sub 60}; 53% and 86% for PET manualmore » contouring; and 28% and 92% for MRI manual contouring. The tumor volume and transition zone pattern could independently predict the accuracy of CHOL-PET. Conclusions: CHOL-PET is superior to the combination of T2W/DW MRI for delineating IPLs. The accuracy of CHOL-PET is insufficient for gland-sparing focal therapies but may be accurate enough for focal boost therapies. The transition zone pattern is a new classification that may predict how well CHOL-PET delineates IPLs.« less
Authors:
 [1] ;  [2] ;  [1] ;  [3] ;  [4] ;  [2] ;  [2] ; ;  [5] ;  [6] ;  [1] ;  [7] ;  [8] ;  [9] ;  [10] ;  [4] ;  [2] ;  [2] ;  [1] ;  [2] more »;  [11] ;  [2] « less
  1. Radiation Oncology Centre, Austin Health, Victoria (Australia)
  2. (Australia)
  3. Monash University Eastern Health Clinical School, Victoria (Australia)
  4. University of Melbourne, Victoria (Australia)
  5. Department of Radiology, Austin Health, Victoria (Australia)
  6. Centre for PET, Austin Health, Victoria (Australia)
  7. Tissupath, Mt Waverley, Victoria (Australia)
  8. Healthcare Imaging, Epworth Hospital, Victoria (Australia)
  9. Diagnostic Imaging, Monash Health, Victoria (Australia)
  10. Department of Urology, Austin Health, Victoria (Australia)
  11. (United Kingdom)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22458739
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics; Journal Volume: 92; Journal Issue: 2; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2015 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; BIOMEDICAL RADIOGRAPHY; CALORIMETRY; CARBON 11; CHOLINE; COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS; DIFFUSION; GLANDS; NEOPLASMS; NMR IMAGING; POSITRON COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; RADICALS; SENSITIVITY; SPECIFICITY; THERAPY; UPTAKE; ZONES