Choline metabolism in prostate cancer: relationship between 1H-MRS measured concentrations and uptake of 18F-Choline on PET-CT in the dominant tumor nodule
Mihaela Rata1, Monica Celli2, Veronica Morgan1, Geoffrey Payne1, Jonathan Gear2, Emma Alexander1, Sue Chua2, David Dearnaley1, and Nandita deSouza1

1Radiotherapy and Imaging, CR-UK and EPSRC Cancer Imaging Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden Hospital, London, United Kingdom, 2Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET/CT, Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton, United Kingdom

Synopsis

Intracellular choline, a putative marker of prostate cancer, may be measured using 1H-MRS, while uptake of extrinsic radiolabelled choline derivatives (11C-choline and 18F-choline) on PET is used to identify prostate cancer. We compared the steady-state concentrations of total choline (1H-MRS) with the uptake of 18F-Choline on PET in a cohort of 11 prostate cancer patients. The measured choline/water ratio in tumor was 0.09±0.02 x10-3 units; the normalized 18F-Choline uptake was 2.69±1.There was a weak negative correlation between measured MRS and early PET uptake (-0.61, p=0.04) suggesting an increased avidity of prostate tumors for choline when internal concentrations are low.

INTRODUCTION:

Choline has been shown to be elevated in cancers as a consequence of increased cell membrane turnover. Thus, intracellular choline measured using MRS may be used as a marker to identify prostate cancer and monitor therapeutic response1. Choline is also administered extrinsically for imaging prostate cancer: PET studies using 11C-choline and 18F-labelled choline derivatives2 rely on the increased uptake of these agents by cancers to delineate the lesion. In this study, we compared steady-state concentrations of total choline as measured by 1H-MRS with the uptake of 18F-Choline on PET in a cohort of 11 prostate cancer patients. The purpose was to interrogate the relationship between intracellular choline and extrinsic choline uptake in prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS :

Patient cohort: Prior to radiotherapy, 11 prostate cancer patients underwent 1H-MRS and 18F-Choline PET-CT scans less than 2 weeks apart. Gleason score was: 3+3 (n=1), 3+4 (n=3), 4+3 (n=6), and 4+4 (n=1).

Data acquisition: MRS was performed on a 1.5T Siemens Avanto using an endorectal coil inflated with 60ml of air combined with an external phased-array pelvic coil. T2-weighted images were used to position the PRESS-localised 3D chemical shift imaging (CSI) grid over the whole prostate. Metabolite spectra (using water/lipid suppression) were acquired with the following parameters: TR/TE = 700/120, vector size 512, 5 averages, 16x16x16 phase encode steps, voxel size 3.75x5.25x4.5mm3 (0.088 ml), 8min acquisition time. Unsuppressed water spectra were acquired from exactly the same location, but with a TE=30ms and 1 average.

PET/CT data were acquired using a Siemens Biograph mCT S128. Patients were fasted for 4 h before a mean 18F-ethylcholine activity of 282MBq (range 179-326MBq) was injected intravenously. At 60min post-injection a half-body PET/CT scan (skull base to upper thighs) was performed. A delayed pelvic PET/CT acquisition was obtained at 90min post-injection. The co-registered unenhanced CT scans were performed for anatomical localisation and attenuation correction. Semiquantitative image analysis of PET/CT data used Hermes software (Hermes Medical Solutions, Stockholm, Sweden) to draw regions-of-interest and derive standardized uptake values.

Data analysis: Up to 6 tumor voxels within the dominant lesion were selected for MRS analysis for each patient (2 voxels/slice for 3 slices, where available) based on T2-weighted MRI. Voxel-derived data were processed using jMRUI software3.The peak area ratio between total choline and water was calculated for each voxel, averaged per patient, and multiplied by 2/9 to correct for the number of equivalent spins in the measured peaks. While it is common practice to include only data with low relative values for the estimated Cramer Rao Lower Bounds (CRLB) this can lead to bias by discarding data with low metabolite concentrations4. In this study, an estimate of reasonable CRLB was obtained from voxels with CRLB/amplitude <25%, and this absolute value was used as an additional limit for retaining data for voxels with CRLB/amp >25%. No corrections for T1 and T2 were performed.

The reported PET parameter was the maximum of the standardized uptake value (SUVmax) measured over the whole volume of the dominant lesion and normalized by the mean of the SUV observed for normal prostate tissue (1ml volume) for both early and delayed acquisitions.

Results of choline measurement using both modalities are quoted as mean ± standard deviation. Data co-registration was achieved by cognitive fusion of the MRI/S and PET data by an experienced radiologist. The relationship between MRS-measured Cho/water ratio and normalized SUVmax of 18F-Choline PET was investigated using Pearson correlation test.

RESULTS:

Figure 1 shows an example of an MR spectrum (right) obtained from the voxel highlighted in the bottom left panel (note the zoomed-in prostate coverage) and corresponding 18F-Choline uptake (top left). Good quality MRS data were acquired for both water and metabolite spectra. Linewidth for the water acquisitions was less than 10Hz for all spectra. The main metabolites (choline, creatine, citrate) were reliably detected in most tumor spectra (only 5/43 fits were excluded from final analysis). The measured choline/water ratio (x10-3 units) in tumor varied between 0.05 and 0.12 (mean 0.09±0.02) while the normalized 18F-Choline uptake covered a range from 1.36-4.57 (mean 2.69±1).

PET and MRS results are summarized in figure 2. No significant difference was observed between early or delayed PET measurements. The Pearson correlation test found a weak negative correlation between the measured MRS and PET parameters for early PET acquisition (-0.61, p=0.04).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

These results suggest that the uptake of externally administered 18F-Choline is larger in tumors with lower total intracellular choline concentration, indicating increased avidity of tumors for choline when internal concentrations are low.

Acknowledgements

CRUK and EPSRC support to the Cancer Imaging Centre at ICR and RMH in association with MRC & Dept of Health C1060/A10334, C1060/A16464 and NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre and the Clinical Research Facility in Imaging.

References

1. Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron DB, Nelson SJ. Three-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopic Imaging of Brain and Prostate Cancer. Neoplasia (New York, NY). 2000;2(1-2):166-189.

2. Schwarzenböck S, Souvatzoglou M, Krause BJ. Choline PET and PET/CT in Primary Diagnosis and Staging of Prostate Cancer. Theranostics. 2012;2(3):318-330. doi:10.7150/thno.4008.

3. jMRUI v5 (Amares, Vanhamme et al., J Magn Reson. 1997; 129: 35-43).

4. Kreis R. The trouble with quality filtering based on relative Cramér-Rao lower bounds. Magn Reson Med. 2015 Mar 6. doi: 10.1002/mrm.25568.

Figures

Figure 1: Example of PET and MRS data from a prostate patient.

Top left: Normalized SUVmax of 18F-Choline PET.

Right: MR spectrum obtained from the voxel highlighted in blue in the bottom-left panel. Note the zoomed-in prostate coverage for MRS. Yellow box = field of view of the CSI grid; oblique bands=outside-prostate saturation slabs; white box = selected PRESS volume.


Figure 2: MRS and PET results for all 11 prostate patients showing a weak correlation between the two imaging modalities.



Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 24 (2016)
2757