18F‑fluciclovine in the detection of prostate cancer in biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy

Czech version

Authors: Otakar Čapoun ¹; Kateřina Astua Elizondo ²; David Zogala ³; Tomáš Padrta ⁴; Tereza Kohlová ⁵
Authors‘ workplace: Urologická klinika VFN a 1. LF UK v Praze ¹; Onkologická klinika VFN a 1. LF UK v Praze ²; Ústav nukleární medicíny VFN a 1. LF UK v Praze ³; Radiodiagnostická klinika VFN a 1. LF UK v Praze ⁴; Radioterapeutická a onkologická klinika FNKV a 3. LF UK v Praze ⁵
Published in: Ces Urol 2021; 25(1): 48-53
Category: Case reports

Overview

Čapoun O, Astua Elizondo K, Zogala D, Padrta T, Kohlová T. ¹⁸F‑fluciclovine in the detection of prostate cancer in biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy. We present a case report of a patient with biochemical relapse following radical prostatectomy, who was examined by PET/CT with radiopharmaceutical ¹⁸F‑fluciclovine.

Keywords:

prostate cancer – biochemical relapse – PET/CT – fluciclovine

Sources

1. https://uroweb.org/wp‑content/ uploads/EAU‑EANM‑ESTRO‑ESUR‑SIOG‑Guidelines‑on‑Prostate‑Cancer- 2020v4.pdf. Přístup 23. 1. 2019.

2. Pound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, et al. Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA 1999; 281(17): 1591–1597.

3. Van den Broeck T, van den Bergh RCN, Arfi N, et al. Prognostic Value of Biochemical Recurrence Following Treatment with Curative Intent for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol 2019; 75(6): 967–987.

4. Evangelista L, Zattoni F, Guttilla A, et al. Choline PET or PET/CT and biochemical relapse of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta‑analysis. Clin Nucl Med 2013; 38(5): 305–314.

5. Fanti S, Minozzi S, Castellucci P, et al. PET/CT with (11)C‑choline for evaluation of prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence: meta‑analysis and critical review of available data. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2016; 43(1): 55–69.

6. Perera M, Papa N, Christidis D, et al. Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predictors of Positive 68Ga‑Prostate‑specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography in Advanced Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta‑analysis. Eur Urol 2016; 70(6): 926–937.

7. Nanni C, Zanoni L, Pultrone C, et al. (18)F‑FACBC (anti1-amino-3-(18)F‑fluorocyclobutane- 1-carboxylic acid) versus (11)C‑choline PET/CT in prostate cancer relapse: results of a prospective trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2016; 43(9): 1601–1610.

8. Bach‑Gansmo T, Nanni C, Nieh PT, et al. Multisite Experience of the Safety, Detection Rate and Diagnostic Performance of Fluciclovine (18 F) Positron Emission Tomography/Computerized Tomography Imaging in the Staging of Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer. J Urol 2017; 197(3 Pt 1): 676-683.

9. Andriole GL, Kostakoglu L, Chau A, et al. LOCATE Study Group. The Impact of Positron Emission Tomography with 18 F‑Fluciclovine on the Treatment of Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer: Results from the LOCATE Trial. J Urol 2019; 201(2): 322–331.

10. Schreibmann E, Schuster DM, Rossi PJ, et al. Image Guided Planning for Prostate Carcinomas With Incorporation of Anti-3-[18 F]FACBC (Fluciclovine) Positron Emission Tomography: Workflow and Initial Findings From a Randomized Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 96(1): 206–213.

11. Souhrn údajů o přípravku. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product‑information/ axumin‑epar‑product‑information_ cs.pdf. Přístup 24. 1. 2021.

12. Chen B, Wei P, Macapinlac HA, Lu Y. Comparison of 18F‑Fluciclovine PET/CT and 99mTc‑MDP bone scan in detection of bone metastasis in prostate cancer. Nucl Med Commun 2019; 40(9): 940–946.

13. Calais J, Ceci F, Eiber M, et al. 18F‑fluciclovine PET‑CT and 68Ga‑PSMA- 11 PET‑CT in patients with early biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy: a prospective, single‑centre, single‑arm, comparative imaging trial. Lancet Oncol 2019; 20(9): 1286–1294.

14. Chade DC, Eastham J, Graefen M, et al. Cancer control and functional outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy for radiation‑recurrent prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2012; 61(5): 961–971.