Incidental Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer by F-18 FDG PET/CT

Lung Metastasis From Prostate Cancer Revealed by 18F-FDG PET/CT Without Osseous Metastasis on Bone Scan

A 54-year-old man, a case of prostate cancer, underwent radical prostatectomy and hormone therapy. Elevated prostate-specific antigen level developed 7 years later, but pelvic MRI and bone scan revealed negative results. Radiotherapy was performed under the suspicion of local recurrence but in vain. F-FDG PET/CT performed 1 more year later showed 3 FDG-avid lesions in the right lung and mediastinum. Lung and lymph node metastases were proved with video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. Bone scan remained negative at that time.

Incidental uptake of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose in the prostate gland. Systematic review and meta-analysis on prevalence and risk of malignancy

AIM

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of published data on the prevalence and risk of malignancy of prostatic incidental uptake (PIU) detected by fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) or PET/computed tomography (PET/CT).

PATIENTS, MATERIAL, METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of studies published up to February 2014 was performed. Pooled prevalence and malignancy risk of PIU were calculated on a per patient-based analysis including 95% confidence interval (95%CI). Furthermore, we assessed some parameters as potential predictors of malignant PIU.

RESULTS

Six studies including 47925 patients who underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT were selected. Pooled prevalence of PIU was 1.8% (95%CI: 1.3-2.3%). Overall, 444 patients with PIU were further evaluated and 121 underwent biopsy. The pooled risk of malignancy in patients with PIU further evaluated or verified by biopsy were 17% (95%CI: 12-23%) and 62% (95%CI: 54-71%), respectively. A higher mean age was observed in the group of malignant PIUs compared to benign PIUs. There was a trend towards a higher mean SUV(max) in the group of malignant PIUs but without a statistically significant difference compared to benign PIUs. Peripheric site of PIU but not presence or absence of calcification was a predictor of malignancy.

CONCLUSIONS

PIU is observed in about 1.8% of 18F-FDG PET/CT scans performed in male patients carrying a significant risk of malignancy. Therefore, whenever a PIU is detected further investigation is warranted to exclude malignancy, in particular when PIU is located in the peripheric site of prostate gland.

Frequency and clinical implications of incidental new primary cancers detected on true whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT studies

OBJECTIVE

To determine the frequency of additional primary malignancies in patients undergoing staging/restaging with PET/computed tomography (CT) and to determine the frequency with which these unsuspected findings change clinical management.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of 556 patients who had undergone a total of 804 PET/CTs for staging/restaging. Lesions that were at an atypical location for a metastasis from the primary malignancy (indication for the study) and had a maximum standardized uptake value greater than 2.5 were considered suspicious. Suspicious lesions were followed up by a combination of clinical examination, biopsy, and additional and/or follow-up imaging.

RESULTS

Forty-three (7.7%) patients had lesions that were suspicious for a newly discovered primary malignancy that was different from the known/suspected malignancy (indication for study). Eight (1.4% of 556) of these patients had biopsy confirmation of an additional synchronous or metachronous primary malignancy. However, these suspicious lesions changed the clinical management for 18 (3.2% of 556) patients. Patients with early-stage disease (stages 1 and 2) based on the malignancy for which the study was conducted were three times more likely to have these suspicious lesions biopsied, evaluated by clinical examination or by additional immediate imaging than were patients with advanced-stage disease (stages 3 and 4); however, this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.08).

CONCLUSION

Unsuspected additional primary malignancies are rarely identified in patients undergoing staging/restaging with PET/CT but have the potential to significantly impact clinical management.

Incidental Focal (18)F-FDG Uptake in the Prostate: Clinical Significance and Differential Diagnostic Criteria

PURPOSE

The extent and intensity of (18)F-FDG uptake in prostate cancer patients are known to be variable, and the clinical significance of focal (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) uptake that is incidentally found on positron emission tomography (PET) has not been established. We investigated the clinical significance of incidental focal prostate uptake of (18)F-FDG on PET/computed tomography (CT) and analyzed differential findings on PET/CT between malignant and benign uptake.

METHODS

A total of 14,854 whole-body (18)F-FDG PET/CT scans (4,806 that were conducted during cancer screening and 10,048 that were conducted to evaluate suspected or alleged cancer outside of the prostate) were retrospectively reviewed to determine the presence, location, multiplicity and maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of focal prostate uptake and combined calcification. The final diagnosis determined by serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and biopsy was compared with PET findings.

RESULTS

Incidental focal prostate uptake was observed in 148 of 14,854 scans (1.0 %). Sixty-seven of these 148 subjects who had diagnostic confirmation were selected for further analysis. Prostate cancer was diagnosed in nine of 67 subjects (13.4%). The remaining 58 subjects had no malignancy in the prostate based on normal serum PSA level (n = 53), or elevated serum PSA level with a negative biopsy result (n = 5). While 84.6% (11/13) of malignant uptake was peripherally located in the prostate glands, 60.2% (50/83) of benign uptake was centrally located (p < 0.05). The positive predictive value of peripheral focal uptake for malignancy was 25%. The SUVmax, multiplicity and combined calcification were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Although incidental focal (18)F-FDG uptake in the prostate is not common, the incidence of cancer with focal uptake is not low. Therefore, these findings deserve further evaluation. The location of the focal prostate uptake may help with the selection of high-risk prostate cancer patients.

FDG PET/CT imaging suggests lymphoma involving prostate may be more resistant to treatment

FDG PET imaging is generally not useful for prostate cancer. Nevertheless, incidental intense FDG uptake in the prostate warrants further evaluation to assess for prostatic malignancy. We report a case where intense FDG uptake was incidentally noted in an enlarged prostate on FDG PET/CT scan performed for a large left hilar/mediastinal mass (that was also intensely FDG avid along with several additional FDG-avid lesions elsewhere). Biopsy of the prostate and mediastinal lesions revealed large B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma at both sites. Serial FDG PET/CT imaging in this patient revealed that the prostatic lymphomatous lesions showed a slower and incomplete response to chemotherapy compared with other sites of lymphomatous involvement (that showed a rapid and complete response to chemotherapy) in the same patient.