Download PDF
Nuklearmedizin 2014; 53(06): 249-258
DOI: 10.3413/Nukmed-0668-14-05
Review
Schattauer GmbH

Incidental uptake of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose in the prostate gland

Systematic review and meta-analysis on prevalence and risk of malignancyZufälliger Uptake von 18F-Fluordeoxyglukose in der Prostata-LogeReview und Metaanalyse zu Prävalenz und Malignitätsrisiko
F. Bertagna
1   Nuclear Medicine, University of Brescia and Spedali Civili di Brescia, Italy
,
R. Sadeghi
2   Nuclear Medicine Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran;
,
L. Giovanella
3   Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET/CT Center, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, Bellinzona, Switzerland
,
G. Treglia
1   Nuclear Medicine, University of Brescia and Spedali Civili di Brescia, Italy
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received: 21 May 2014

accepted in revised form: 18 August 2014

Publication Date:
04 January 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Aim: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of published data on the prevalence and risk of malignancy of pros- tatic incidental uptake (PIU) detected by flu- orine-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 SUVmax 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.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel: Review und Metaanalyse publizierter Daten zu Prävalenz und Malignitätsrisiko von zufälligem Uptake in der Prostata (ZUP), entdeckt durch Fluor-18-Fluordeoxyglukose (18F-FDG) Positronenemissionstomographie (PET) oder PET/Computed Tomography (PET/ CT). Patienten, Material, Methoden: Eine umfassende Literatursuche publizierter Studien bis Februar 2014 wurde durchgeführt. Gezielte Prävalenz und Malignitätsrisiko von ZUP wurden anhand patientenbasierter Analysen, inklusive 95% Konfidenzintervall (95% KI) berechnet. Außerdem beurteilten wir einige Parameter als mögliche Prädiktoren von ZUP. Ergebnisse: Sechs Studien mit 47 925 Patienten, die sich 18F-FDG-PET/CT unterzogen, wurden ausgewählt. Gezielte Prävalenz von ZUP betrug 1,8% (95% KI: 1,3–2,3%). Insgesamt wurden 444 Patienten mit ZUP weiterführend abgeklärt und 121 wurden bioptisch untersucht. Das Malignitätsrisiko in den Patienten, die mit ZUP weiterführend abgeklärt oder bioptisch verifiziert wurden, betrug 17% (95% KI: 12–23%) bzw. 62% (95% KI: 54–71%). Ein höheres Durchschnittsalter wurde in der Gruppe maligner ZUP im Vergleich zur Gruppe benigner ZUPs beobachtet. Dabei zeigte sich ein starker Trend in Richtung eines höheren durchschnittlichen SUV-max in der Gruppe maligner ZUPs allerdings ohne statistischen signifikanten Unterschied verglichen mit der Gruppe benigner ZUPs. Periphere Lokalisation von ZUP allerdings ohne Präsenz oder Absenz von Kalzifikationen war ein Malignitätsprädiktor. Schlussfolgerungen: ZUP wurde in ungefähr 1,8% der 18F-FDG-PET/CT-Untersuchungen beobachtet bei männlichen Patienten, die ein signifikantes Malignitätsrisiko tragen. Wann immer ein ZUP entdeckt wird, sollte eine weiterführende Abklärung gewährleistet sein, um Malignität auszuschließen, besonders wenn ZUP in der peripheren Prostataloge lokalisiert ist.

Keywords

Prostate - incidental uptake - PET/CT - metaanalysis

Schlüsselwörter

Prostata - Zufallsuptake - PET/CT - Metaanalyse
 

  • References

  • 1 Apolo AB, Pandit-Taskar N, Morris MJ. Novel tracers and their development for the imaging of metastatic prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 2008; 49: 2031-2041.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bertagna F, Abuhilal M, Bosio G. et al. Role of uC-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography in evaluating patients affected by prostate cancer with suspected relapse due to prostate-specific antigen elevation. Jpn J Radiol 2011; 29: 394-404.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bertagna F, Treglia G, Orlando E. et al. Prevalence and clinical significance of incidental F18-FDG breast uptake: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Jpn J Radiol 2014; 32: 59-68.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bertagna F, Treglia G, Piccardo A. et al. Diagnostic and clinical significance of F-18-FDG-PET/CT thyroid incidentalomas. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2012; 97: 3866-3875.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bertagna F, Treglia G, Piccardo A. et al. FDG-PET/ CT thyroid incidentalomas: a wide retrospective analysis in three Italian centres on the significance of focal uptake and SUV value. Endocrine 2013; 43: 678-685.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bhosale P, Balachandran A, Vikram R. et al. What Is the Clinical Significance of FDG Unexpected Uptake in the Prostate in Patients Undergoing PET/CT for Other Malignancies?. Int J Mol Imaging 2013; 2013: 476-786.
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Cavalcanti JL, Núñez RF, Yeung HW. et al. Incidental finding of prostate cancer and adenomatous colon polyp in a patient with lung cancer. Clin Nucl Med 2007; 32: 871-873.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Cho SK, Choi JY, Yoo J. et al. Incidental Focal 18F-FDG Uptake in the Prostate: Clinical Significance and Differential Diagnostic Criteria. Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011; 45: 192-196.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Chopra A, Ford A, De Noronha R. et al. Incidental findings on positron emission tomography/CT scans performed in the investigation of lung cancer. Br J Radiol 2012; 85: e229-237.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Facey K, Bradbury I, Laking G. et al. Overview of the clinical effectiveness of positron emission tomography imaging in selected cancers. Health Technol Assess 2007; 11: iii-iv xi-267.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Gill RS, Perry T, Abele JT. et al. The clinical significance of incidental intra-abdominal findings on positron emission tomography performed to investigate pulmonary nodules. World J Surg Oncol 2012; 10: 25.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Han EJ, H O J Choi WH. et al. Significance of incidental focal uptake in prostate on 18-fluoro-2-deo-xyglucose positron emission tomography CT images. Br J Radiol 2010; 83: 915-920.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Hwang I, Chong A, Jung SI. et al. Is further evaluation needed for incidental focal uptake in the prostate in 18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography images?. Ann Nucl Med 2013; 27: 140-145.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ilgan S, Koca G, Gundogdu S. Incidental detection of granulomatous prostatitis by F-18 FDG PET/CT in a patient with bladder cancer: a rare complication of BCG instillation therapy. Clin Nucl Med 2009; 34: 613-614.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Jadvar H, Desai B, Ji L. et al. Prognostic utility of FDG PET/CT in men with castrate-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 2012; 53 (Suppl. 01) 116.
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Jadvar H. Imaging evaluation of prostate cancer with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT: utility and limitations. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013; 40 (Suppl. 01) S5-10.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Jadvar H. Molecular imaging of prostate cancer: PET radiotracers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 199: 278-291.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Monet A, Merino B, Lupo R. Interesting image. Incidental diagnosis of prostate cancer by F-18 FDG PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med 2010; 35: 34-35.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Nakayama M, Okizaki A, Ishitoya S. et al. An evaluation of the necessity for the additional examination in a prostatic incidental FDG accumulation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012; 39 (Suppl. 02) S460.
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Oyama N, Akino H, Suzuki Y. et al. The increased accumulation of (18F)fluorodeoxyglucose in untreated prostate cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 1999; 29: 623-629.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Ozkol V, Alper E, Aydin N. et al. The clinical value of incidental 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-avid foci detected on positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Nucl Med Commun 2010; 31: 128-136.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Seino H, Ono S, Miura H. et al. Incidental prostate 18F-FDG uptake without calcification indicates the possibility of prostate cancer. Oncol Rep 2014; 31: 1517-1522.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Siegel C. Re: Significance of incidental focal uptake in prostate on 18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography CT images. J Urol 2012; 187: 145-146.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Takeuchi M, Suzuki T, Sasaki S. et al. Clinicopathologic significance of high signal intensity on diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the ureter, urethra, prostate and bone of patients with bladder cancer. Acad Radiol 2012; 19: 827-833.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Treglia G, Calcagni ML, Rufini V. et al. Clinical significance of incidental focal colorectal 18F-fluoro-deoxyglucose uptake: our experience and a review of the literature. Colorectal Dis 2012; 14: 174-180.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Umbehr MH, Müntener M, Hany T. et al. The role of nC-choline and 18F-fluorocholine positron emission tomography (PET) and PET/CT in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2013; 64: 106-117.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Von Schulthess GK, Steinert HC, Hany TF. Integrated PET/ CT: current applications and future directions. Radiology 2006; 238: 405-422.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Wilkinson C, Chowdhury F, Scarsbrook A. et al. BCG-induced granulomatous prostatitis–an incidental finding on FDG PET-CT. Clin Imaging 2012; 36: 413-415.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Wong WL, Moule RN, Nunan T. Incidental fleuro-deoxyglucose uptake in the prostate. Br J Radiol 2010; 83: 902-903.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Yang Z, Hu S, Cheng J. et al. Prevalence and risk of cancer of incidental uptake in prostate identified by fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Clin Imaging 2014; 38: 470-474.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Yap JT, Carney JP, Hall NC. et al. Image-guided cancer therapy using PET/CT. Cancer J 2004; 10: 221-233.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar