UK guidelines on 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT in prostate cancer imaging

Characterising 18F-fluciclovine uptake in breast cancer through the use of dynamic PET/CT imaging

BACKGROUND

18F-fluciclovine is a synthetic amino acid positron emission tomography (PET) radiotracer that is approved for use in prostate cancer. In this clinical study, we characterised the kinetic model best describing the uptake of 18F-fluciclovine in breast cancer and assessed differences in tracer kinetics and static parameters for different breast cancer receptor subtypes and tumour grades.

METHODS

Thirty-nine patients with pathologically proven breast cancer underwent 20-min dynamic PET/computed tomography imaging following the administration of 18F-fluciclovine. Uptake into primary breast tumours was evaluated using one- and two-tissue reversible compartmental kinetic models and static parameters.

RESULTS

A reversible one-tissue compartment model was shown to best describe tracer uptake in breast cancer. No significant differences were seen in kinetic or static parameters for different tumour receptor subtypes or grades. Kinetic and static parameters showed a good correlation.

CONCLUSIONS

18F-fluciclovine has potential in the imaging of primary breast cancer, but kinetic analysis may not have additional value over static measures of tracer uptake.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03036943.

Evaluation of the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on prostate cancer using the RIGHT checklist

Background

The International Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) statement is a set of recommendations for reporting in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). We aimed to use RIGHT to evaluate the reporting quality of CPGs on prostate cancer.

Methods

We systematically searched literature databases and websites from January 1, 2018 to December 1, 2020 to identify CPGs on prostate cancer. Two investigators reviewed the identified articles and assessed the reporting quality independently by using the RIGHT checklist. We reported the proportions of guidelines that complied with each of the 35 RIGHT checklist item and the mean reporting compliance percentages for each of the seven domains of RIGHT.

Results

A total of 38 CPGs were included. The mean overall reporting rate over the included CPGs was 51.6%. Eighteen items were reported by more than half of the guidelines four items (1a 3, 7a and 13a) were reported by all guidelines. Items 7b (10.5%), 13b (10.5%), 14c (13.2%), and 18b (7.9%) had the lowest reporting proportions. The mean reporting rates in each RIGHT domain were 74.6% for “Basic Information”, 26.3% for “Review and quality assurance”, 59.9% for “Background”, 43.7% for “Evidence”, 43.2% for “Recommendations”, 43.4% for “Funding and declaration and management of interests”, and 43.0% for “Other information”.

Conclusions

The overall adherence of CPGs on prostate cancer to RIGHT checklist is poor. Following the RIGHT checklist during the development of the guideline could improve the quality of reporting in the future.

Prostate Cancer Liver Metastases Presenting as Relatively Photopenic Lesions on 18F-Fluciclovine PET/CT

ABSTRACT

A 66-year-old man with prostate adenocarcinoma status post radical retropubic prostatectomy and bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection, followed by salvage external beam radiation therapy to the prostate bed 1 year after surgery. Over the course of 17 years, the patient underwent multiple lines of systemic treatment for recurrent disease. He was referred for restaging 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT due to rising serum prostate-specific antigen levels. Contrast-enhanced 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT images demonstrated multiple new liver metastases, which were relatively photopenic in comparison with the physiologic radiotracer activity in the surrounding normal liver parenchyma.

The use of systematic review evidence to support the development of guidelines for positron emission tomography: a cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVES

To examine to what degree guidelines for PET and PET/CT used systematic review evidence.

METHODS

The latest version of guidelines for PET, PET/CT or PET/MRI published in English in PubMed until December 2019 was analysed in two categories: (1) for indications, if mainly discussing the appropriate use of PET in diverse conditions; (2) for procedures, if providing step-by-step instructions for imaging. We surveyed the general characteristics and the use of systematic review evidence for developing recommendations across all guidelines, and surveyed the citation of evidence for five recommendation topics in guidelines for procedures.

RESULTS

Forty-seven guidelines, published between 2004 and 2020, were included. Guidelines for indications were developed mainly on systematic reviews (13 of 19, 68.4%). Among those, 12 (63.2%) reported the level of evidence, 4 (21.1%) reported the strength of recommendations, 3 (15.8%) described external review and 7 (36.8%) involved methodologists. Guidelines for procedures were seldom developed on systematic reviews (1 of 27, 3.7%). Among those, 1 (3.7%) reported the level of evidence, 1 (3.7%) reported the strength of recommendations, 3 (11.1%) described external review and 1 (3.7%) involved methodologists. Systematic review evidence was cited by 2 (7.4%) procedure guidelines per recommendation topic in median.

CONCLUSION

The use of systematic review evidence for developing recommendations among PET or PET/CT guidelines was suboptimal. While our survey is an icebreaking attempt to explore a key element (i.e. use of systematic review evidence) for developing nuclear medicine guidelines, assessments of other domains of guideline quality may help capture the entire picture.

KEY POINTS

• The use of systematic review evidence for developing recommendations among guidelines for PET or PET/CT was suboptimal. • Only 13 (68.4%) guidelines for indications and 1 (3.7%) guideline for procedures systematically reviewed the literature during guideline development. • For each recommendation topic we examined, only a median of 2 (7.4%) procedure guidelines cited systematic review evidence.

Diagnostic performance of F-18 fluciclovine PET/CT in post-radical prostatectomy prostate cancer patients with rising prostate-specific antigen level ≤0.5 ng/mL

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to assess the diagnostic performance of fluciclovine positron emission tomography (PET)/computerized tomography (CT) in post-radical prostatectomy prostate cancer patients with rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤0.5 ng/mL, and identify the associated predictive factors of positive studies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From 30 June 2017 to 9 August 2019, patients with post-radical prostatectomy prostate cancer who underwent F-18 fluciclovine PET/CT and had PSA level within 2-week interval (PSAPET) ≤0.5 ng/mL were enrolled into this single-institution retrospective study. Data on tumor characteristics, including Gleason scores, extra-prostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion, surgical margin and nodal metastasis, PSA after radical prostatectomy, previous hormonal therapy, PSA doubling time (PSADT), scanner type, PSAPET and site of recurrence were collected. Comparison of these factors between groups of positive and negative fluciclovine PET/CT was done by using Mann-Whitney U-test and Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

Of 94 eligible patients with post-radical prostatectomy prostate cancer, 10 patients had positive studies (10.6%). Detection rate at PSAPET 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 ng/mL were 0% (0/11), 0% (0/15), 20% (6/30), 4% (1/25) and 23.1% (3/13), respectively. Upon multivariate analysis of clinical factors, only a PSADT <3 months (P = 0.023) was shown to have a statistically significant correlation with a positive study.

CONCLUSION

In post-radical prostatectomy prostate cancer patients with rising PSA 0.1-0.5 ng/mL, the sensitivity of F-18 fluciclovine PET/CT for identifying tumor recurrence/metastases is poor with an overall detection rate of 10.6%. Larger prospective studies are required to validate these findings.