Impact of 18f-fluoride pet in patients with known prostate cancer: Initial results from the national oncologic pet registry

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 55, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 574-581

  Hillner, Bruce E ^a   Siegel, Barry A ^b   Hanna, Lucy ^c   Duan, Fenghai ^c   Shields, Anthony F ^d   Coleman, R Edward ^e  

^a VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Bone scintigraphy; PET; Prospective studies; Prostate cancer; Registry

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT; SODIUM FLUORIDE;

AGED; ARTICLE; BONE METASTASIS; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER GROWTH; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER STAGING; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATE CANCER; TREATMENT PLANNING; BONE SCINTISCANNING; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; ONCOLOGY; PET; PROSTATE TUMOR; REGISTER; SCINTISCANNING; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TUMOR RECURRENCE; UNITED STATES; VERY ELDERLY;

BONE SCINTIGRAPHY; PET; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTATE CANCER; REGISTRY;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; COHORT STUDIES; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; MALE; MEDICAL ONCOLOGY; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; REGISTRIES; SODIUM FLUORIDE; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84901358837     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.113.130005     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Sartor O, Eisenberger M, Kattan MW, Tombal B, Lecouvet F. Unmet needs in the prediction and detection of metastases in prostate cancer. Oncologist. 2013; 18:549-557.
2. Lecouvet FE, Lhommel R, Pasoglou V, Larbi A, Jamar F, Tombal B. Novel imaging techniques reshape the landscape in high-risk prostate cancers. Curr Opin Urol. 2013;23:323-330.
3. Grant FD, Fahey FH, Packard AB, Davis RT, Alavi A, Treves ST. Skeletal PET with 18F-fluoride: applying new technology to an old tracer. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:68-78.
4. Li Y, Schiepers C, Lake R, Dadparvar S, Berenji GR. Clinical utility of 18F-fluoride PET/CT in benign and malignant bone diseases. Bone. 2012;50:128-139.
5. Sodium fluoride F 18 injection investigator's brochure. National Cancer Institute. Release Date August 2008. http://imaging.cancer.gov/images/documents/ Generic-NaF-IB-ed.1-10-2009.pdf. Accessed February 5, 2014.
6. NCA for Positron Emission Tomography. (NaF-18) to identify bone metastasis of cancer (CAG-00065R). CMS.gov. http://www.cms.gov/mcd/viewnca.asp? from5ncd&nca-id5233. Accessed February 5, 2014.
7. National coverage determinations with data collection as a condition of coverage: coverage with evidence development. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/Transmittals/downloads/R956CP.pdf. Accessed February 5, 2014.
8. Tunis S, Whicher D. The National Oncologic PET Registry: lessons learned for coverage with evidence development. J Am Coll Radiol. 2009;6:360-365.
9. Hillner BE, Liu D, Coleman RE, et al. The National Oncologic PET Registry (NOPR): design and analysis plan. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1901-1908.
10. Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Liu D, et al. Impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2155-2161.
11. Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Shields AF, et al. Relationship between cancer type and impact of PET and PET/CT on intended management: findings of the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1928-1935.
12. Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Shields AF, et al. The impact of positron emission tomography (PET) on expected management during cancer treatment: findings of the National Oncologic PET Registry. Cancer. 2009;115:410-418.
13. Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Hanna L, et al. Impact of 18F-FDG PET used after initial treatment of cancer: comparison of the National Oncologic PET Registry 2006 and 2009 cohorts. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:831-837.
14. Agresti A. Categorical Data Analysis. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience; 2013.
15. Jadvar H. Imaging evaluation of prostate cancer with 18F- fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT: utility and limitations. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(suppl 1):S5-S10.
16. Even-Sapir E, Metser U, Mishani E, Lievshitz G, Lerman H, Leibovitch I. The detection of bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: 99mTc-MDP planar bone scintigraphy, single-and multi-field-of-view SPECT, 18F-fluoride PET, and 18F-fluoride PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:287-297.
17. Segall G, Delbeke D, Stabin MG, et al. SNM practice guideline for sodium 18Ffluoride PET/CT bone scans 1.0. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1813-1820.
18. Lofgren J, Mortensen J, Loft A, et al. Diagnosing bone metastases: pilot data from a prospective study comparing [99mTc]-MDP planar bone scintigraphy, whole body SPECT/CT, [18F]-fluoride PET/CT and [18F]-fluoride PET/MRI. J Nucl Med. 2013;54(suppl 2):93.
19. Damle NA, Bal C, Bandopadhyaya GP, et al. The role of 18F-fluoride PET-CT in the detection of bone metastases in patients with breast, lung and prostate carcinoma: a comparison with FDG PET/CT and 99mTc-MDP bone scan. Jpn J Radiol. 2013;31:262-269.
20. Tateishi U, Morita S, Taguri M, et al. A meta-analysis of 18F-fluoride positron emission tomography for assessment of metastatic bone tumor. Ann Nucl Med. 2010;24:523-531.
21. Gralow JR, Biermann JS, Farooki A, et al. NCCN Task Force report: bone health in cancer care. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013;11:S-1-S-50.
22. Prasad SM, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, Nguyen PL, Hu JC. Inappropriate utilization of radiographic imaging in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer in the United States. Cancer. 2012;118:1260-1267.
23. Moul J, Lee J. Rising serum PSA following local therapy for prostate cancer: diagnostic evaluation. http://www.uptodate.com/contents/rising-serum- psafollowing-local-therapy-for-prostate-cancer-definition-natural-history-and- riskstratification? source=search-result&search= rising+PSA&selectedTitle=1%7E29. Accessed February 19, 2014.
24. Mohler JL, Armstrong AJ, Bahnson RR, et al. Prostate cancer, version 3.2012: featured updates to the NCCN guidelines. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2012;10:1081-1087.
25. Hillman BJ, Frank RA, Abraham BC. The Medical Imaging and Technology Alliance Conference on Research Endpoints Appropriate for Medicare Coverage of New PET Radiopharmaceuticals. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10:689-694.
26. Hillner BE, Tosteson TD, Tosteson AN, et al. Intended versus inferred management after PET for cancer restaging: analysis of Medicare claims linked to a coverage with evidence development registry. Med Care. 2013;51:361-367.
27. Hillner BE, Tosteson TD, Tosteson AN, et al. Intended versus inferred care after PET performed for initial staging in the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:2024-2031.
28. F18PET/CT versus TC-MDP scanning to detect bone mets. Clinical Trials.gov NCT 00882609. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00882609?term=sodium+ fluoride+PET&phase=2&rank=2. Accessed February 19, 2014.