↓ Skip to main content

18F-FACBC (anti1-amino-3-18F-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid) versus 11C-choline PET/CT in prostate cancer relapse: results of a prospective trial

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
203 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
18F-FACBC (anti1-amino-3-18F-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid) versus 11C-choline PET/CT in prostate cancer relapse: results of a prospective trial
Published in
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00259-016-3329-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cristina Nanni, Lucia Zanoni, Cristian Pultrone, Riccardo Schiavina, Eugenio Brunocilla, Filippo Lodi, Claudio Malizia, Matteo Ferrari, Patrizio Rigatti, Cristina Fonti, Giuseppe Martorana, Stefano Fanti

Abstract

To compare the accuracy of (18)F-FACBC and (11)C-choline PET/CT in patients radically treated for prostate cancer presenting with biochemical relapse. This prospective study enrolled 100 consecutive patients radically treated for prostate cancer and presenting with rising PSA. Of these 100 patients, 89 were included in the analysis. All had biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy (at least 3 months previously), had (11)C-choline and (18)F-FACBC PET/CT performed within 1 week and were off hormonal therapy at the time of the scans. The two tracers were compared directly in terms of overall positivity/negativity on both a per-patient basis and a per-site basis. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy were calculated for both the tracers; follow-up at 1 year (including correlative imaging, PSA trend and pathology when available) was considered as the standard of reference. In 51 patients the results were negative and in 25 patients positive with both the tracers, in eight patients the results were positive with (18)F-FACBC but negative with (11)C-choline, and in five patients the results were positive with (11)C-choline but negative with (18)F-FACBC. Overall in 49 patients the results were false-negative (FN), in two true-negative, in 24 true-positive (TP) and in none false-positive (FP) with both tracers. In terms of discordances between the tracers: (1) in one patient, the result was FN with (11)C-choline but FP with (18)F-FACBC (lymph node), (2) in seven, FN with (11)C-choline but TP with (18)F-FACBC (lymph node in five, bone in one, local relapse in one), (3) in one, FP with (11)C-choline (lymph node) but TP with (18)F-FACBC (local relapse), (4) in two, FP with (11)C-choline (lymph nodes in one, local relapse in one) but FN with (18)F-FACBC, and (5) in three, TP with (11)C-choline (lymph nodes in two, bone in one) but FN with (18)F-FACBC. With (11)C-choline and (18)F-FACBC, sensitivities were 32 % and 37 %, specificities 40 % and 67 %, accuracies 32 % and 38 %, PPVs 90 % and 97 %, and NPVs 3 % and 4 %, respectively. Categorizing patients by PSA level (<1 ng/ml 28 patients, 1 - <2 ng/ml 28 patients, 2 - <3 ng/ml 11 patients, ≥3 ng/ml 22 patients), the number (percent) of patients with TP findings were generally higher with (18)F-FACBC than with (11)C-choline: six patients (21 %) and four patients (14 %), eight patients (29 %) and eight patients (29 %), five patients (45 %) and four patients (36 %), and 13 patients (59 %) and 11 patients (50 %), respectively. (18)F-FACBC can be considered an alternative tracer superior to (11)C-choline in the setting of patients with biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 1%
Unknown 83 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 20%
Other 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Postgraduate 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 21 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Chemistry 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 25 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 October 2022.
All research outputs
#4,776,855
of 23,806,312 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
#571
of 3,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,865
of 301,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
#14
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,806,312 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 301,910 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.