Publication:
Is There Any Role for 18F-Fluciclovine PET/CT in the Presence of Undetectable PSA in Prostate Cancer Patients After Definitive Treatment?

dc.contributor.authorAjalaya Teyateetien_US
dc.contributor.authorAchiraya Teyateetien_US
dc.contributor.authorHomer A. Macapinlacen_US
dc.contributor.authorYang Luen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Centeren_US
dc.contributor.otherFaculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherDivision of Nuclear Medicineen_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-08-25T10:22:59Z
dc.date.available2020-08-25T10:22:59Z
dc.date.issued2020-09-01en_US
dc.description.abstractPURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the role of F-fluciclovine PET/CT in the evaluation of prostate cancer (PC) patients after definitive treatment in the presence of undetectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted in PC patients who had undetectable PSA level and underwent fluciclovine PET/CT within a 2-week interval of PSA examination and without interval treatment or other cancer. Patient and tumor characteristics at initial diagnosis, treatment regimens, and findings on fluciclovine PET/CT were collected. Comparisons between groups of positive and negative fluciclovine PET/CT were done by using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 34 fluciclovine PET/CTs from 34 patients met the inclusion criteria. There were 4 positive (11.8%) and 30 negative fluciclovine PET/CTs (88.2%). All of the patients with positive results had an initial Gleason score of 7 or higher and locally advanced tumor (T3-T4). More common features at the time of diagnosis among positive study patients as compared with negative ones were atypical histologic variants (25% vs 0%) and very high-risk PC (50% vs 30%). Most of the patients with positive study received second-line hormonal therapy (HT) (50%), whereas patients with negative results received first-line HT (53.3%). Chemotherapy naivety was less common among positive patients (75% vs 96.7%). Sites of involvement on positive fluciclovine PET/CTs were pelvic lymph nodes (2/4, 50%), lung and mediastinal lymph node (1/4, 25%), and prostatectomy bed (1/4, 25%). CONCLUSIONS: In the presence of undetectable PSA in PC patients after definitive treatment, fluciclovine PET/CT would benefit most to patients with Gleason score of 7 or higher, high disease burden (T3-T4), and atypical histologic variants at the time of diagnosis, and the ones who have history of second-line HT and/or chemotherapy.en_US
dc.identifier.citationClinical nuclear medicine. Vol.45, No.9 (2020), 672-678en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/RLU.0000000000003122en_US
dc.identifier.issn15360229en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85089301972en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/58019
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85089301972&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleIs There Any Role for 18F-Fluciclovine PET/CT in the Presence of Undetectable PSA in Prostate Cancer Patients After Definitive Treatment?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85089301972&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections