Erratum: Evaluation of primary prostate cancer using 11C-methionine-PET/ CT and 18F-FDG-PET/CT (Annals of Nuclear Medicine DOI: 10.1007/s12149-011-0551-6);Evaluation of primary prostate cancer using 11C-methionine-PET/ CT and 18F-FDG-PET/CT

Annals of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 138-145

  Shiiba, Masato ^a   Ishihara, Keiichi ^a   Kimura, Go ^a   Kuwako, Tomoyuki ^a   Yoshihara, Naohisa ^a   Sato, Hidetaka ^a   Kondo, Yukihiro ^a   Tsuchiya, Shin Ichi ^a   Kumita, Shin Ichiro ^a  

^a NIPPON MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Japan)

Author keywords

Prostate cancer; Time of flight PET

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; METHIONINE C 11;

ANATOMICAL CONCEPTS; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SCORING SYSTEM; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 84858708382     PISSN: 09147187     EISSN: 18646433     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12149-012-0580-9     Document Type: Erratum

References (31)

1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59(4):225-49.
2. Verma S, Rajesh A. A clinically relevant approach to imaging prostate cancer: review. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(3 Suppl):S1-10. (quiz S1-4).
3. Jager GJ, Severens JL, Thornbury JR, de La Rosette JJ, Ruijs SH, Barentsz JO. Prostate cancer staging: should MR imaging be used? A decision analytic approach. Radiology. 2000;215(2):445-51. (Pubitemid 30237843)
4. Ogura K, Maekawa S, Okubo K, Aoki Y, Okada T, Oda K, et al. Dynamic endorectal magnetic resonance imaging for local staging and detection of neurovascular bundle involvement of prostate cancer: correlation with histopathologic results. Urology. 2001;57(4):721-6.
5. Hricak H. MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging in the pretreatment evaluation of prostate cancer. Br J Radiol. 2005;78(Spec No 2):S103-11. (Pubitemid 43019918)
6. Valk PE, Delbeke D, Bailey DL, Townsend DW, Maisey MN. Positron emission tomography. London: Springer; 2006.
7. Kim EE, Jackson EF. Molecular imaging in oncology. New York: Springer; 1999.
8. Avril N, Dambha F, Murray I, Shamash J, Powles T, Sahdev A. The clinical advances of fluorine-2-D-deoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in urological cancers. Int J Urol. 2010;17(6):501-11.
9. Effert PJ, Bares R, Handt S, Wolff JM, Bull U, Jakse G. Metabolic imaging of untreated prostate cancer by positron emission tomography with 18fluorine-labeled deoxyglucose. J Urol. 1996;155(3):994-8.
10. Hofer C, Laubenbacher C, Block T, Breul J, Hartung R, Schwaiger M. Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography is useless for the detection of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 1999;36(1):31-5. (Pubitemid 29265277)
11. Liu IJ, Zafar MB, Lai YH, Segall GM, Terris MK. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography studies in diagnosis and staging of clinically organ-confined prostate cancer. Urology. 2001;57(1):108-11. (Pubitemid 32065829)
12. Shreve PD, Grossman HB, Gross MD, Wahl RL. Metastatic prostate cancer: initial findings of PET with 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose. Radiology. 1996;199(3):751-6.
13. Fanti S, Nanni C, Ambrosini V, Gross MD, Rubello D, Farsad M. PET in genitourinary tract cancers. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;51(3):260-71. (Pubitemid 47189064)
14. Fricke E, Machtens S, Hofmann M, van den Hoff J, Bergh S, Brunkhorst T, et al. Positron emission tomography with 11Cacetate and 18F-FDG in prostate cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30(4):607-11. (Pubitemid 36559841)
15. Larson SM, Morris M, Gunther I, Beattie B, Humm JL, Akhurst TA, et al. Tumor localization of 16beta-18F-fluoro-5alpha-dihydrotestosterone versus 18F-FDG in patients with progressive, metastatic prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(3):366-73. (Pubitemid 47618608)
16. Oyama N, Akino H, Suzuki Y, Kanamaru H, Miwa Y, Tsuka H, et al. Prognostic value of 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography imaging for patients with prostate cancer. Mol Imaging Biol. 2002;4(1):99-104. (Pubitemid 34272714)
17. Lindholm P, Leskinen S, Nagren K, Lehikoinen P, Ruotsalainen U, Teras M, et al. Carbon-11-methionine PET imaging of malignant melanoma. J Nucl Med. 1995;36(10):1806-10.
18. Lindholm P, Leskinen S, Lapela M. Carbon-11-methionine uptake in squamous cell head and neck cancer. J Nucl Med. 1998;39(8):1393-7. (Pubitemid 28373564)
19. Miyazawa H, Arai T, Iio M, Hara T. PET imaging of non-smallcell lung carcinoma with carbon-11-methionine: relationship between radioactivity uptake and flow-cytometric parameters. J Nucl Med. 1993;34(11):1886-91. (Pubitemid 23331252)
20. Kanegae K, Nakano I, Kimura K, Kaji H, Kuge Y, Shiga T, et al. Comparison of MET-PET and FDG-PET for differentiation between benign lesions and lung cancer in pneumoconiosis. Ann Nucl Med. 2007;21(6):331-7. (Pubitemid 47283261)
21. Dankerl A, Liebisch P, Glatting G, Friesen C, Blumstein NM, Kocot D, et al. Multiple myeloma: molecular imaging with 11C-methionine PET/CT-initial experience. Radiology. 2007;242(2):498-508. (Pubitemid 46146203)
22. Ogawa T, Shishido F, Kanno I, Inugami A, Fujita H, Murakami M, et al. Cerebral glioma: evaluation with methionine PET. Radiology. 1993;186(1):45-53. (Pubitemid 23005465)
23. Terakawa Y, Tsuyuguchi N, Iwai Y, Yamanaka K, Higashiyama S, Takami T, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 11C-methionine PET for differentiation of recurrent brain tumors from radiation necrosis after radiotherapy. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(5):694-9. (Pubitemid 351717532)
24. Tóth G, Lengyel Z, Balkay L, Salah MA, Trón L, Tóth C. Detection of prostate cancer with 11c-methionine positron emission tomography. J Urol. 2005;173(1):66-9. (Pubitemid 39627673)
25. Nunez R, Macapinlac HA, Yeung HW, Akhurst T, Cai S, Osman I, et al. Combined 18F-FDG and 11C-methionine PET scans in patients with newly progressive metastatic prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2002;43(1):46-55. (Pubitemid 34101187)
26. Schoder H, Larson S. Positron emission tomography for prostate, bladder, and renal cancer. Semin Nucl Med. 2004;34(4):274-92. (Pubitemid 39365998)
27. Minamimoto R, Uemura H, Sano F, Terao H, Nagashima Y, Yamanaka S, et al. The potential of FDG-PET/CT for detecting prostate cancer in patients with an elevated serum PSA level. Ann Nucl Med. 2011;25(1):21-7.
28. Surti S, Kuhn A, Werner ME, Perkins AE, Kolthammer J, Karp JS. Performance of Philips Gemini TF PET/CT scanner with special consideration for its time-of-flight imaging capabilities. J Nucl Med. 2007;48(3):471-80. (Pubitemid 47604933)
29. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology. 1983;148(3):839-43. (Pubitemid 13033817)
30. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982;143(1):29-36. (Pubitemid 12142173)
31. Watanabe H, Kanematsu M, Kondo H, Kako N, Yamamoto N, Yamada T, et al. Preoperative detection of prostate cancer: a comparison with 11C-choline PET, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET and MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;31(5):1151-6.