I TUOI DATI
I TUOI ORDINI
N. prodotti: 0
Totale ordine: € 0,00
I TUOI ABBONAMENTI
I TUOI ARTICOLI
THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND MOLECULAR IMAGING
Rivista di Medicina Nucleare e Imaging Molecolare
A Journal on Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Affiliated to the and to the International Research Group of Immunoscintigraphy
Indexed/Abstracted in: Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 2,413
PET IN ONCOLOGY
Guest Editor: I. Carrio
The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2001 Settembre;45(3):235-44
Local detection of prostate cancer by positron emission tomography with 2-fluorodeoxyglucose: comparison of filtered back projection and iterative reconstruction with segmented attenuation correction
Turlakow A. 1, Larson S. M. 1, Coakley F. 1, Akhurst T. 1, Gonen M. 2, Macapinlac H. A. 1, Kelly W. 3, Leibel S. 4, Humm J. 5, Scardino P. 6, Scher H. 3, Hricak H. 1
1 Department of Radiology
2 Department of Biostatistics
3 Department of Medical Oncology
4 Department of Radiation Oncology
5 Department of Medical Physics
6 Department of Urology
Memorial Sloab-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
Background. To compare filtered back projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction with segmented attenuation correction (IRSAC) in the local imaging of prostate cancer by positron emission tomography with 2-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET).
Methods. We retrospectively identified 13 patients with primary (n=7) or recurrent (n=6) prostate cancer who had increased uptake in the prostate on FDG-PET performed without urinary catheterization, contemporaneous biopsy confirming the presence of active tumor in the prostate, and correlative cross-sectional imaging by MRI (n=8) or CT (n=5). FDG-PET images were reconstructed by FBP and IRSAC. Two independent nuclear medicine physicians separately rated FBP and IRSAC images for visualization of prostatic activity on a 4-point scale. Results were compared using biopsy and cross-sectional imaging findings as the standard of reference.
Results. IRSAC images were significantly better that FBP in terms of visualization of prostatic activity in 12 of 13 patients, and were equivalent in 1 patient (p<0.001, Wilcoxon signed ranks test). In particular, 2 foci of tumor activity in 2 different patients seen on IRSAC images were not visible on FBP images. In 11 patients who had a gross tumor mass evident on cross-sectional imaging, there was good agreement between PET and cross-sectional anatomic imaging with respect to tumor localization.
Conclusions. In selected patients, cancer can be imaged within the prostate using FDG-PET, and IRSAC is superior to FBP in image reconstruction for local tumor visualization.