Imaging of Neuroendocrine Prostatic Carcinoma: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Jason Zhu and Version 1 by Ajaykumar C Morani.

Neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC) is an aggressive subtype of prostate cancer that typically has a high metastatic potential and poor prognosis in comparison to the adenocarcinoma subtype. 

  • Neuroendocrine prostate cancer
  • Imaging
  • Pathologic
  • Genetic

1. Introduction

Prostate cancer is the most common non-cutaneous cancer in men worldwide. The year 2020 estimates for prostate cancer are about 191,930 new cases in the United States and 1,414,259 worldwide and it is the second leading cause of cancer death in men, behind lung cancer [1,2][1][2]. Neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC) represents an aggressive subtype of prostate cancer, accounting for 0.5–2% of all prostate cancers and typically has a high metastatic potential and poor prognosis [3]. It can arise de novo, but much more commonly occurs as a mechanism of treatment resistance during therapy for conventional prostatic adenocarcinoma, when they are also termed castration-resistant prostate cancers (CRPC) [4]. Thus, the incidence of NEPCs increases after hormonal therapy and these are thought to arise from lineage plasticity induced by androgen receptor-targeted therapy [5]. They represent a challenge in the radiological and pathological diagnosis, as well as in the clinical management of the patients with limited therapies and very poor prognosis.

2. Pathologic Classification and Genetic Alterations

The main function of the prostate gland is to produce an alkaline fluid, one of the components of semen, which nourishes and protects sperm. Glands formed from epithelial cells produce these secretions. Histologically, the prostate gland includes two main types of epithelial cells: basal cells and luminal cells, which can be readily identified using light microscopy (LM). Neuroendocrine cells represent a third cell type that constitute 1% or less of the total prostatic cell population and are found scattered between the basal and luminal cells [6]. Morphologically, they are of two types: “open” cells that are flask-shaped with apical processes towards the lumen and “closed” cells that interdigitate with secretory cells and have long dendritic processes [7]. They do not express prostate-specific antigen (PSA), which is an epithelial differentiation marker, rather they express neuroendocrine markers, including neuron-specific enolase (NSE), chromogranin A (CgA), and synaptophysin (SYN) [8,9][8][9].
According to the most recent classification by the World Health Organization (WHO), NEPCs are classified into 5 categories as follows [7,10][7][10]:
  • Usual adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation
    -This type includes cases of typical acinar or ductal adenocarcinoma that have focal neoplastic neuroendocrine cells detected by immunohistochemical stains (IHC). It is subdivided into two subtypes, focal and diffuse [11].
  • Adenocarcinoma with Paneth-like cell neurodifferentiation
    -Defined as a typical adenocarcinoma of the prostate with a varying degree of Paneth-like cells (distinct eosinophilic cytoplasmic granules on LM). It has a favorable prognosis, but it may lead to a false high-grading due to its formation of the nest and cord structures [12].
  • Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (carcinoid tumor)
    -True carcinoid tumor of the prostate is very rare. It has the same morphology of carcinoid tumors elsewhere in the body, including bladder, gastrointestinal tract, and lungs [13]. Diagnosing a carcinoid tumor, especially in a young patient, should raise the clinical suspicion of multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome, type IIB (MEN IIB) [14].
  • Small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (SCNC)
    -This is an aggressive, high-grade tumor with identical pathologic features to those of small cell lung carcinoma and other small cell lung cancers. They are typically negative for PSA and androgen receptors, but there are some exceptions as it can be a component of mixed tumor that has the classic luminal adenocarcinoma [15,16][15][16].
  • Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNC)
    -This newly adopted term describes a high-grade carcinoma that shows neuroendocrine differentiation with large polygonal cells, abundant cytoplasm, and nuclei that contain coarse chromatin and a prominent nucleolus. As a result, it cannot be classified as a SCNC. Pure LCNC is exceedingly rare and most cases occur after long standing hormonal therapy for prostatic adenocarcinoma [17,18][17][18].

3. Genetic Alterations

Identification and understanding of molecular and genetic alterations that lead to neuroendocrine differentiation in prostate cancers is crucial for the development of novel targeted therapies [19]. The most important molecular alterations in applied clinical practice currently are N-myc proto-oncogene (MYCN) and aurora kinase A (AURKA), androgen receptor gene amplification, and ETS gene family fusions. It may also include RE1-silencing transcription factor (REST) gene downregulation or loss, TP54 loss, RB1 loss, PTEN loss, MYCL amplification or upregulation of proliferative genes (e.g., cyclin D1) [20,21,22,23][20][21][22][23].

4. Imaging Evaluation

Imaging of the prostate includes various modalities, including multiparametric ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and positron emission technique (PET), including evolving molecular imaging techniques.
Multiparametric US imaging includes various US techniques used for anatomic assessment, such as grayscale US, color doppler US (CDUS), transrectal US (TRUS) biopsy, US elastography (real time and strain), contrast-enhanced US (CEUS), and computer-aided US imaging analysis [24,25][24][25]. US imaging for prostate cancer has quite a few drawbacks. For example, benign lesions of the prostate, such as benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and prostatitis, can both have the same hypoechoic appearance of prostate cancer and early-stage cancers can appear isoechoic. Initial TRUS can miss up to 47% of cancer cases and around 60% of suspicious prostatic lesions on grayscale US, are benign [24,26,27][24][26][27]. CEUS has the ability to visualize the asymmetrical tumor microvasculature pattern and makes it superior to CDUS, which is limited to larger macrovessels [28]. As prostate cancers are usually more stiff than normal prostatic tissue due to increased collagen deposition around the tumor, increased cellularity and vascularity, US elastography is emerging as an important diagnostic tool for primary prostatic evaluation [29].
Most of the literature states that MDCT typically plays no role in the detection of PNEC and is not recommended for diagnosis. The only role of CT is for nodal staging, but it is also limited for this purpose, due to its inability to detect neoplastic architectural changes within less than 10 mm normal-sized lymph nodes (LNs) [30,31][30][31]. MDCT plays an important role in M staging for detection and restaging for bone and lung metastases in these cases.
Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) is now considered to be the standard imaging evaluation of choice when suspecting prostate cancer. Members of PI-RADS (version 2.1) steering committee recommend using 3T MRI scanners over 1.5T machines for prostatic evaluation, as it increases the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), leading to an increase in both temporal and spatial resolution. If only 1.5T scanners are available or in the case of inherently low SNR sequences, such as DWI, they recommend the use of endorectal coil (ERC) which has the ability to increase SNR at any magnetic field strength [32]. Most tumors appear isointense to normal prostate tissue on T1-weighted sequences which serve as a baseline for the contrast-enhanced MRI, delineate the prostate outline, and can also demonstrate post-biopsy hemorrhage and periprostatic fat invasion. T2-weighted (T2W) sequences are used to evaluate prostatic zonal anatomy, primarily evaluate the transitional zone or central gland tumors, asses for seminal vesicle or nodal involvement, and detect extra-prostatic extension (EPE). Peripheral zone cancers usually demonstrate ill-defined T2 hypointense focal lesions with restricted diffusion and are primarily evaluated on ADC/DWI images. Transitional zone tumors appear hypointense with spiculated, ill-defined margins and smudgy appearance on T2W images. These lesions may also invade the urethral sphincter and anterior fibromuscular stroma [33,34][33][34]. While mpMRI is now considered the technique of choice for initial and local (T) tumor staging, PET/CT and PET/MRI have shown a great value in distant extraprostatic (N and M) staging, restaging after biomedical relapse, and response assessment after androgen deprivation therapy (ADR) [35,36,37,38][35][36][37][38]. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of multiparametric MRI for detection of EPE, were 48.7%, 73.9%, 35.9%, and 82.8%, respectively [39,40][39][40].
mpMRI can also differentiate prostatic carcinoid from usual prostatic adenocarcinoma based on the considerably larger size and mild hyperintensity of the tumor on T2W images [41]. Recently, biopsy guided by the fusion of MRI and transrectal US images (called MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy) is increasingly used where MRI findings are used as reference for US-guided biopsy, allowing for increased accuracy and precision [42].

5. Molecular Imaging

Molecular imaging in prostate cancer offers the advantage of improved sensitivity over conventional imaging. Multiple PET tracers are available for the evaluation of prostate carcinoma, particularly in the restaging setting. The FDA-approved radiotracers include 18F-FDG, 18F-NaF, 11C/18F-Choline, and 18F-Fluciclovine. 68Ga-DOTATATE PET has been found to be promising and is now being established for the evaluation of neuroendocrine neoplasms of the lungs, thyroid gland, and gastrointestinal tract. However, it is still not used for routine clinical use in patients with NEPC [43,44][43][44]. PSMA has received attention as a useful biomarker in the imaging of prostate cancer, particularly detecting disease at lower PSA levels. However, the expression may be reduced that can potentially lead to false negatives in highly evolved tumors with neuroendocrine features [45]. Another emerging PET tracer is an analog of bombesin or antagonist of the gastrin releasing peptide receptor. Bombesin-like peptides are also overexpressed in NEPC and are an area of active research [46].

5.1. 18 F- Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)

FDG is a glucose analog and its uptake reflects the tissue glucose metabolism. Due to increased uptake in neoplasms, resulting from the increased metabolic activity of the tumor cells, it is the mainstay of molecular imaging and the most commonly used PET tracer to evaluate tumors [47,48][47][48]. It has a limited value when it comes to prostate cancer as a result of low glucose metabolism and the use of non-glucose metabolic pathways, e.g., fructose and fatty acid metabolism in the tumor [49,50][49][50]. However, Spratt et al. demonstrated that 18FDG PET has clinical utility in the metastatic evaluation of NEPC and this may be due to high glucose metabolism of the usually high-grade neuroendocrine cancers seen in prostate. FDG PET findings can also serve as prognostic marker in cases of metastatic NEPC. When stratified by the median survival from NEPC diagnosis, patients who survived <2.2 versus ≥2.2 years, had more PET avid bone and soft tissue lesions and higher average SUVmax of bone and soft tissue lesions [51,52][51][52]. Some low-grade neuroendocrine tumors may not be intensely FDG-avid and rather may be more intensely avid on 68 Gallium DOTATATE PET, as shown with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms [53].

5.2. 68 Gallium Labelled Somatostatin Analogs (68Ga-DOTATATE or 68Ga-DOTANOC)

68Ga-DOTATATE or 68Ga-DOTANOC, are 68Ga labeled somatostatin analogs that bind with high affinity to the somatostatin receptor 2 (SSTR2), which is highly expressed by NEPCs, enabling their identification by SSTR2 tracers [54,55][54][55]. 68Ga-DOTATATE or 68Ga-DOTANOC PET can be used to evaluate bony metastases and predict treatment response in these cases [54,56][54][56]. 68Ga-DOTATATE has a reported sensitivity and specificity of 82% and 90%, respectively, for detecting disease in cases of biochemically-relapsed prostate cancer [57]. This may be presumably useful in evaluation and management of low and intermediate grade neuroendocrine neoplasms, as shown in cases of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms [53,58,59][53][58][59]. At the same time, one should also remain aware of the false positive diagnosis in the setting of prostatitis due to inflammatory uptake [60,61][60][61] or in case of standard prostatic adenocarcinoma with inflammatory cell infiltrates [62]. Inflammatory tracer uptake usually gives rise to low- or very low-grade hypermetabolic activity and may be a clue in some of these cases [60].

References

  1. Siegel, R.L.; Miller, K.D.; Jemal, A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2020, 70, 7–30.
  2. Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021, 71, 209–249.
  3. Ather, M.H.; Siddiqui, T. The genetics of neuroendocrine prostate cancers: A review of current and emerging candidates. Appl. Clin. Genet. 2012, 5, 105–110.
  4. Parimi, V.; Goyal, R.; Poropatich, K.; Yang, X.J. Neuroendocrine differentiation of prostate cancer: A review. Am. J. Clin. Exp. Urol. 2014, 2, 273–285.
  5. Guo, H.; Ci, X.; Ahmed, M.; Hua, J.T.; Soares, F.; Lin, D.; Puca, L.; Vosoughi, A.; Xue, H.; Li, E.; et al. ONECUT2 is a driver of neuroendocrine prostate cancer. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 278.
  6. Huang, Y.H.; Zhang, Y.Q.; Huang, J.T. Neuroendocrine cells of prostate cancer: Biologic functions and molecular mechanisms. Asian J. Androl. 2019, 21, 291–295.
  7. Fine, S.W. Neuroendocrine tumors of the prostate. Modern pathology. Off. J. U. S. Can. Acad. Pathol. Inc. 2018, 31, S122–S132.
  8. Sun, Y.; Niu, J.; Huang, J. Neuroendocrine differentiation in prostate cancer. Am. J. Transl. Res. 2009, 1, 148–162.
  9. Huang, J.; Wu, C.; di Sant’Agnese, P.A.; Yao, J.L.; Cheng, L.; Na, Y. Function and molecular mechanisms of neuroendocrine cells in prostate cancer. Anal. Quant. Cytol. Histol. 2007, 29, 128–138.
  10. Moch, H.; Cubilla, A.L.; Humphrey, P.A.; Reuter, V.E.; Ulbright, T.M. The 2016 WHO classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs—Part A: Renal, penile, and testicular tumours. Eur. Urol. 2016, 70, 93–105.
  11. Epstein, J.I.; Amin, M.B.; Beltran, H.; Lotan, T.L.; Mosquera, J.M.; Reuter, V.E.; Robinson, B.D.; Troncoso, P.; Rubin, M.A. Proposed morphologic classification of prostate cancer with neuroendocrine differentiation. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2014, 38, 756–767.
  12. So, J.S.; Gordetsky, J.; Epstein, J.I. Variant of prostatic adenocarcinoma with Paneth cell-like neuroendocrine differentiation readily misdiagnosed as Gleason pattern 5. Hum. Pathol. 2014, 45, 2388–2393.
  13. Reyes, A.; Moran, C.A. Low-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma (carcinoid tumor) of the prostate. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2004, 128, e166–e168.
  14. Priemer, D.S.; Montironi, R.; Wang, L.; Williamson, S.R.; Lopez-Beltran, A.; Cheng, L. Neuroendocrine tumors of the prostate: Emerging insights from molecular data and updates to the 2016 World Health Organization classification. Endocr. Pathol. 2016, 27, 123–135.
  15. Aggarwal, R.; Huang, J.; Alumkal, J.J.; Zhang, L.; Feng, F.Y.; Thomas, G.V.; Weinstein, A.S.; Friedl, V.; Zhang, C.; Witte, O.N.; et al. Clinical and genomic characterization of treatment-emergent small-cell neuroendocrine prostate cancer: A multi-institutional prospective study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2018, 36, 2492–2503.
  16. Wang, W.; Epstein, J.I. Small cell carcinoma of the prostate. A morphologic and immunohistochemical study of 95 cases. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2008, 32, 65–71.
  17. Evans, A.J.; Humphrey, P.A.; Belani, J.; van der Kwast, T.H.; Srigley, J.R. Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of prostate: A clinicopathologic summary of 7 cases of a rare manifestation of advanced prostate cancer. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2006, 30, 684–693.
  18. Tu, X.; Chang, T.; Nie, L.; Qiu, S.; Xu, H.; Huang, Y.; Bao, Y.; Liu, Z.; Yang, L.; Wei, Q. Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the prostate: A systematic review and pooled analysis. Urol. Int. 2019, 103, 383–390.
  19. Aparicio, A.; Logothetis, C.J.; Maity, S.N. Understanding the lethal variant of prostate cancer: Power of examining extremes. Cancer Discov. 2011, 1, 466–468.
  20. Tzelepi, V.; Zhang, J.; Lu, J.F.; Kleb, B.; Wu, G.; Wan, X.; Hoang, A.; Efstathiou, E.; Sircar, K.; Navone, N.M.; et al. Modeling a lethal prostate cancer variant with small-cell carcinoma features. Clin. Cancer Res. 2012, 18, 666–677.
  21. Kadakia, K.C.; Tomlins, S.A.; Sanghvi, S.K.; Cani, A.K.; Omata, K.; Hovelson, D.H.; Liu, C.J.; Cooney, K.A. Comprehensive serial molecular profiling of an “N of 1” exceptional non-responder with metastatic prostate cancer progressing to small cell carcinoma on treatment. J. Hematol. Oncol. 2015, 8, 109.
  22. Hansel, D.E.; Nakayama, M.; Luo, J.; Abukhdeir, A.M.; Park, B.H.; Bieberich, C.J.; Hicks, J.L.; Eisenberger, M.; Nelson, W.G.; Mostwin, J.L.; et al. Shared TP53 gene mutation in morphologically and phenotypically distinct concurrent primary small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Prostate 2009, 69, 603–609.
  23. Lapuk, A.V.; Wu, C.; Wyatt, A.W.; McPherson, A.; McConeghy, B.J.; Brahmbhatt, S.; Mo, F.; Zoubeidi, A.; Anderson, S.; Bell, R.H.; et al. From sequence to molecular pathology, and a mechanism driving the neuroendocrine phenotype in prostate cancer. J. Pathol. 2012, 227, 286–297.
  24. Loch, T.; Eppelmann, U.; Lehmann, J.; Wullich, B.; Loch, A.; Stockle, M. Transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate: Random sextant versus biopsies of sono-morphologically suspicious lesions. World J. Urol. 2004, 22, 357–360.
  25. Postema, A.; Mischi, M.; de la Rosette, J.; Wijkstra, H. Multiparametric ultrasound in the detection of prostate cancer: A systematic review. World J. Urol. 2015, 33, 1651–1659.
  26. Taira, A.V.; Merrick, G.S.; Galbreath, R.W.; Andreini, H.; Taubenslag, W.; Curtis, R.; Butler, W.M.; Adamovich, E.; Wallner, K.E. Performance of transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy in detecting prostate cancer in the initial and repeat biopsy setting. Prostate Cancer Prosta. Dis. 2010, 13, 71–77.
  27. Singh, H.; Canto, E.I.; Shariat, S.F.; Kadmon, D.; Miles, B.J.; Wheeler, T.M.; Slawin, K.M. Predictors of prostate cancer after initial negative systematic 12 core biopsy. J. Urol. 2004, 171, 1850–1854.
  28. Kuligowska, E.; Barish, M.A.; Fenlon, H.M.; Blake, M. Predictors of prostate carcinoma: Accuracy of gray-scale and color Doppler US and serum markers. Radiology 2001, 220, 757–764.
  29. Good, D.W.; Stewart, G.D.; Hammer, S.; Scanlan, P.; Shu, W.; Phipps, S.; Reuben, R.; McNeill, A.S. Elasticity as a biomarker for prostate cancer: A systematic review. BJU Int. 2014, 113, 523–534.
  30. Sawczuk, I.S.; deVere White, R.; Gold, R.P.; Olsson, C.A. Sensitivity of computed tomography in evaluation of pelvic lymph node metastases from carcinoma of bladder and prostate. Urology 1983, 21, 81–84.
  31. Salo, J.O.; Kivisaari, L.; Rannikko, S.; Lehtonen, T. The value of CT in detecting pelvic lymph node metastases in cases of bladder and prostate carcinoma. Scand. J. Urol. Nephrol. 1986, 20, 261–265.
  32. Turkbey, B.; Rosenkrantz, A.B.; Haider, M.A.; Padhani, A.R.; Villeirs, G.; Macura, K.J.; Tempany, C.M.; Choyke, P.L.; Cornud, F.; Margolis, D.J.; et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur. Urol. 2019, 76, 340–351.
  33. Ghai, S.; Haider, M.A. Multiparametric-MRI in diagnosis of prostate cancer. Indian J. Urol. IJU J. Urol. Soc. India 2015, 31, 194–201.
  34. Choi, Y.J.; Kim, J.K.; Kim, N.; Kim, K.W.; Choi, E.K.; Cho, K.S. Functional MR imaging of prostate cancer. Radiographics 2007, 27, 63–75.
  35. Wallitt, K.L.; Khan, S.R.; Dubash, S.; Tam, H.H.; Khan, S.; Barwick, T.D. Clinical PET imaging in prostate cancer. R Radiographics 2017, 37, 1512–1536.
  36. Lindenberg, L.; Choyke, P.; Dahut, W. Prostate cancer imaging with Novel PET tracers. Curr. Urol. Rep. 2016, 17, 18.
  37. Wibmer, A.G.; Burger, I.A.; Sala, E.; Hricak, H.; Weber, W.A.; Vargas, H.A. Molecular imaging of prostate cancer. Radiographics 2016, 36, 142–159.
  38. Evangelista, L.; Zattoni, F.; Cassarino, G.; Artioli, P.; Cecchin, D.; Dal Moro, F.; Zucchetta, P. PET/MRI in prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2020, 48, 859–873.
  39. Scott, E. The role of magnetic resonance image guided prostate biopsy in stratifying men for risk of extracapsular extension at radical prostatectomy. Urol. Oncol. Semin. Origin. Investig. 2017, 35, 121.
  40. Muehlematter, U.J.; Burger, I.A.; Becker, A.S.; Schawkat, K.; Hötker, A.M.; Reiner, C.S.; Müller, J.; Rupp, N.J.; Rüschoff, J.H.; Eberli, D.; et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI versus 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI for extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion in patients with prostate cancer. Radiology 2019, 293, 350–358.
  41. Li, Y.; Mongan, J.; Behr, S.C.; Sud, S.; Coakley, F.V.; Simko, J.; Westphalen, A.C. Beyond prostate adenocarcinoma: Expanding the differential diagnosis in prostate pathologic conditions. Radiographics 2016, 36, 1055–1075.
  42. Okihara, K. Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment using multiparametric transrectal ultrasonography. J. Med. Ultrason. 2019, 46, 363–366.
  43. Luboldt, W.; Zophel, K.; Wunderlich, G.; Abramyuk, A.; Luboldt, H.J.; Kotzerke, J. Visualization of somatostatin receptors in prostate cancer and its bone metastases with Ga-68-DOTATOC PET/CT. Mol. Imaging Biol. 2010, 12, 78–84.
  44. Sollini, M.; Erba, P.A.; Fraternali, A.; Casali, M.; Di Paolo, M.L.; Froio, A.; Frasoldati, A.; Versari, A. PET and PET/CT with 68gallium-labeled somatostatin analogues in Non GEP-NETs tumors. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 194123.
  45. Mena, E.; Lindenberg, L.M.; Choyke, P.L. New targets for PET molecular imaging of prostate cancer. Semin. Nucl. Med. 2019, 49, 326–336.
  46. Giovacchini, G.; Giovannini, E.; Riondato, M.; Ciarmiello, A. Radiopharmaceuticals for the diagnosis and therapy of neuroendocrine differentiated prostate cancer. Curr. Radiopharm. 2017, 10, 6–15.
  47. Macheda, M.L.; Rogers, S.; Best, J.D. Molecular and cellular regulation of glucose transporter (GLUT) proteins in cancer. J. Cell. Physiol. 2005, 202, 654–662.
  48. Almuhaideb, A.; Papathanasiou, N.; Bomanji, J. 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging in oncology. Ann. Saudi Med. 2011, 31, 3–13.
  49. Liu, Y.; Zuckier, L.S.; Ghesani, N.V. Dominant uptake of fatty acid over glucose by prostate cells: A potential new diagnostic and therapeutic approach. Anticancer Res. 2010, 30, 369–374.
  50. Reinicke, K.; Sotomayor, P.; Cisterna, P.; Delgado, C.; Nualart, F.; Godoy, A. Cellular distribution of Glut-1 and Glut-5 in benign and malignant human prostate tissue. J. Cell. Biochem. 2012, 113, 553–562.
  51. Spratt, D.E.; Gavane, S.; Tarlinton, L.; Fareedy, S.B.; Doran, M.G.; Zelefsky, M.J.; Osborne, J.R. Utility of FDG-PET in clinical neuroendocrine prostate cancer. Prostate 2014, 74, 1153–1159.
  52. Shen, K.; Liu, B.; Zhou, X.; Ji, Y.; Chen, L.; Wang, Q.; Xue, W. The Evolving Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in Diagnosis and Prognosis Prediction in Progressive Prostate Cancer. Front. Oncol. 2021, 11, 683793.
  53. Zhang, P.; Yu, J.; Li, J.; Shen, L.; Li, N.; Zhu, H.; Zhai, S.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, Z.; Lu, M. Clinical and prognostic value of PET/CT imaging with combination of (68)Ga-DOTATATE and (18)F-FDG in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. Contrast Media Mol. Imaging 2018, 2018, 2340389.
  54. Poeppel, T.D.; Binse, I.; Petersenn, S.; Lahner, H.; Schott, M.; Antoch, G.; Brandau, W.; Bockisch, A.; Boy, C. 68Ga-DOTATOC versus 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT in functional imaging of neuroendocrine tumors. J. Nucl. Med. 2011, 52, 1864–1870.
  55. Gofrit, O.N.; Frank, S.; Meirovitz, A.; Nechushtan, H.; Orevi, M. PET/CT with 68Ga-DOTA-TATE for diagnosis of neuroendocrine: Differentiation in patients with castrate-resistant prostate cancer. Clin. Nucl. Med. 2017, 42, 1–6.
  56. Sharma, R.; Wang, W.M.; Yusuf, S.; Evans, J.; Ramaswami, R.; Wernig, F.; Frilling, A.; Mauri, F.; Al-Nahhas, A.; Aboagye, E.O.; et al. (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT parameters predict response to peptide receptor radionuclide therapy in neuroendocrine tumours. Radiother. Oncol. 2019, 141, 108–115.
  57. Santos, G.; Garcia, M.; Engler, H.; Alonso, O. Intraindividual comparison of 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT vs. 11C-choline PET/CT in patients with prostate cancer in biochemical relapse: In vivo evaluation of the expression of somatostatin receptors. Rev. Esp. Med. Nucl. Imagen Mol. 2018, 38, 29–37.
  58. Naswa, N.; Sharma, P.; Kumar, A.; Nazar, A.H.; Kumar, R.; Chumber, S.; Bal, C. Gallium-68-DOTA-NOC PET/CT of patients with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: A prospective single-center study. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2011, 197, 1221–1228.
  59. Ambrosini, V.; Campana, D.; Bodei, L.; Nanni, C.; Castellucci, P.; Allegri, V.; Montini, G.C.; Tomassetti, P.; Paganelli, G.; Fanti, S. 68Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT clinical impact in patients with neuroendocrine tumors. J. Nucl. Med. Off. Publ. Soc. Nucl. Med. 2010, 51, 669–673.
  60. Hofman, M.S.; Lau, W.F.; Hicks, R.J. Somatostatin receptor imaging with 68Ga DOTATATE PET/CT: Clinical utility, normal patterns, pearls, and pitfalls in interpretation. Radiographics 2015, 35, 500–516.
  61. Schmidt, M.Q.; Trenbeath, Z.; Chin, B.B. Neuroendocrine prostate cancer or prostatitis? An unusual false positive on gallium-68 DOTA-Tyr3-octreotate positron emission tomography/computed tomography in a patient with known metastatic neuroendocrine tumor. World J. Nucl. Med. 2019, 18, 304–306.
  62. Nisar, M.U.; Costa, D.N.; Jia, L.; Oz, O.K.; de Blanche, L. 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT uptake in prostate with an incidental finding of prostatic acinar adenocarcinoma and metastatic neuroendocrine cancer to the liver. Clin. Nucl. Med. 2021, 46, e428–e430.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback