1
|
Scott NP, Teoh EJ, Flight H, Jones BE, Niederer J, Mustata L, MacLean GM, Roy PG, Remoundos DD, Snell C, Liu C, Gleeson FV, Harris AL, Lord SR, McGowan DR. Characterising 18F-fluciclovine uptake in breast cancer through the use of dynamic PET/CT imaging. Br J Cancer 2022; 126:598-605. [PMID: 34795409 PMCID: PMC8854436 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-021-01623-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/04/2021] [Revised: 10/25/2021] [Accepted: 10/29/2021] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- N P Scott
- Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - E J Teoh
- Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
- Blue Earth Diagnostics Ltd, Oxford Science Park, Oxford, UK
| | - H Flight
- Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - B E Jones
- Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust, Reading, UK
| | - J Niederer
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - L Mustata
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - G M MacLean
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - P G Roy
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - D D Remoundos
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - C Snell
- Mater Research, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
- Mater Pathology, Mater Hospital Brisbane, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - C Liu
- Mater Pathology, Mater Hospital Brisbane, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - F V Gleeson
- Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - A L Harris
- Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- MRC Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, Oxford, UK
| | - S R Lord
- Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
| | - D R McGowan
- Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Liu K, Ma Y, Yang Y, Lu J, Zhao J, Du S, Zhang X, Liu C, Del Giudice F, Shiota M, Hatakeyama S, Zhang X, Kang J. Evaluation of the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on prostate cancer using the RIGHT checklist. ANNALS OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE 2021; 9:1173. [PMID: 34430614 PMCID: PMC8350620 DOI: 10.21037/atm-21-2956] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2021] [Accepted: 06/24/2021] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kefeng Liu
- Department of Pharmacy, the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.,Henan Key Laboratory of Precision Clinical Pharmacy, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China
| | - Yanfang Ma
- School of Chinese Medicine of Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Yongjie Yang
- Department of Pharmacy, the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.,Henan Key Laboratory of Precision Clinical Pharmacy, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China
| | - Jingli Lu
- Department of Pharmacy, the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.,Henan Key Laboratory of Precision Clinical Pharmacy, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China
| | - Jie Zhao
- Department of Pharmacy, the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.,Henan Key Laboratory of Precision Clinical Pharmacy, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China
| | - Shuzhang Du
- Department of Pharmacy, the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.,Henan Key Laboratory of Precision Clinical Pharmacy, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China
| | - Xuepei Zhang
- Urology department, the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China
| | - Chunlei Liu
- Urology department, the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China
| | - Francesco Del Giudice
- Department of Maternal-Infant and Urological Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy
| | - Masaki Shiota
- Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan
| | - Shingo Hatakeyama
- Department of Urology, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, Hirosaki, Japan
| | - Xiaojian Zhang
- Department of Pharmacy, the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.,Henan Key Laboratory of Precision Clinical Pharmacy, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China
| | - Jian Kang
- Department of Pharmacy, the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.,Henan Key Laboratory of Precision Clinical Pharmacy, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Baiomy A, Martiniova L, Efstathiou E, Schuster DM, Ravizzini G. Prostate Cancer Liver Metastases Presenting as Relatively Photopenic Lesions on 18F-Fluciclovine PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med 2021; 46:e240-e241. [PMID: 33208612 DOI: 10.1097/rlu.0000000000003377] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Eleni Efstathiou
- Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Li Q, Hou W, Li L, Su M, Ren Y, Wang W, Zou K, Tian R, Sun X. The use of systematic review evidence to support the development of guidelines for positron emission tomography: a cross-sectional survey. Eur Radiol 2021; 31:6992-7002. [PMID: 33683391 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-07756-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/06/2020] [Revised: 01/06/2021] [Accepted: 02/04/2021] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Qianrui Li
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.,Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Centre, Cochrane China Centre and MAGIC China Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China
| | - Wenxiu Hou
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China
| | - Ling Li
- Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Centre, Cochrane China Centre and MAGIC China Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China
| | - Minggang Su
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China
| | - Yan Ren
- Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Centre, Cochrane China Centre and MAGIC China Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China
| | - Wen Wang
- Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Centre, Cochrane China Centre and MAGIC China Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China
| | - Kang Zou
- Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Centre, Cochrane China Centre and MAGIC China Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China
| | - Rong Tian
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
| | - Xin Sun
- Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Centre, Cochrane China Centre and MAGIC China Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Teyateeti A, Khan B, Teyateeti A, Chen B, Bridhikitti J, Pan T, Peng W, Macapinlac HA, Lu Y. 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. Nucl Med Commun 2020; 41:906-915. [PMID: 32796479 DOI: 10.1097/mnm.0000000000001228] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ajalaya Teyateeti
- Division of Diagnostic Imaging, Department of Nuclear Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
- Division of Nuclear Medicine
| | - Bilal Khan
- Division of Diagnostic Imaging, Department of Nuclear Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Achiraya Teyateeti
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Bo Chen
- Division of Diagnostic Imaging, Department of Nuclear Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jidapa Bridhikitti
- Radiotherapy Division, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand
| | - Tinsu Pan
- Division of Diagnostic Imaging, Department of Imaging Physics
| | - Wei Peng
- Division of Basic Sciences, Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Homer A Macapinlac
- Division of Diagnostic Imaging, Department of Nuclear Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Yang Lu
- Division of Diagnostic Imaging, Department of Nuclear Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|