18F-DCFBC PET/CT for XXXX -Based Detection and Characterization of Primary Prostate Cancer.

@entity8984 @entity1 @entity27425 @entity5 @entity1067 @entity71127 @entity1486
UNASSIGNED: We previously demonstrated the ability to detect metastatic prostate cancer using @entity71127 ( @entity8984 -DCFBC), a low-molecular-weight radiotracer that targets the @entity27425 ( @entity27425 ). @entity27425 has been shown to be associated with higher Gleason grade and more aggressive disease. An imaging biomarker able to detect clinically significant high-grade primary prostate cancer reliably would address an unmet clinical need by allowing for risk-adapted @entity1 management. METHODS: We enrolled 13 @entity1 with primary prostate cancer who were imaged with @entity8984 -DCFBC PET before scheduled prostatectomy, with 12 of these @entity1 also undergoing pelvic prostate MR imaging. Prostate @entity8984 -DCFBC PET was correlated with MR imaging and histologic and immunohistochemical analysis on a prostate-segment (12 regions) and dominant-lesion basis. There were no incidental extraprostatic findings on PET suggestive of metastatic disease. RESULTS: MR imaging was more sensitive than @entity8984 -DCFBC PET for detection of primary prostate cancer on a per-segment (sensitivities of up to 0.17 and 0.39 for PET and MR imaging, respectively) and per-dominant-lesion analysis (sensitivities of 0.46 and 0.92 for PET and MR imaging, respectively). However, @entity8984 -DCFBC PET was more specific than MR imaging by per-segment analysis (specificities of 0.96 and 0.89 for PET and MR imaging for corresponding sensitivity, respectively) and specific for detection of high-grade lesions (Gleason 8 and 9) greater than 1.0 mL in size (4/4 of these @entity1 positive by PET). @entity71127 uptake in tumors was positively correlated with Gleason score (   = 0.64; @entity27425 expression,    = 0.47; and @entity1486 ,    = 0.52). There was significantly lower @entity71127 uptake in benign @entity1067 than @entity5 (median maximum standardized uptake value, 2.2 vs. 3.5; P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Although the sensitivity of @entity8984 -DCFBC for primary prostate cancer was less than MR imaging, @entity8984 -DCFBC PET was able to detect the more clinically significant high-grade and @entity5 (Gleason score 8 and 9) with higher specificity than MR imaging. In particular, there was relatively low @entity71127 PET uptake in benign @entity1067 , compared with cancer in the prostate, which may allow for more specific detection of primary prostate cancer by @entity8984 -DCFBC PET. This study demonstrates the utility of @entity27425 -based PET, which may be used in conjunction with MR imaging to identify clinically significant prostate cancer.
