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 response
1. Choline is also
administered extrinsically for imaging prostate cancer: PET studies using
11C-choline
and
18F-labelled choline derivatives
2 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 SUV
max
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.