Please cite this article in press as: De Bari B, et al. Choline-PET in prostate cancer management: The point of view of the radiation oncologist. Crit Rev Oncol/Hematol (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2014.04.002 ARTICLE IN PRESS ONCH-1850; No. of Pages 14 Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx Choline-PET in prostate cancer management: The point of view of the radiation oncologist Berardino De Bari a,∗ , Filippo Alongi b , Laëtitia Lestrade c , Francesco Giammarile d a Radiation Oncology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland b Radiation Oncology Department, Sacro Cuore Hospital, Negrar-Verona, Italy c Radiation Oncology Department, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève (HUG), Geneva, Switzerland d Médecine Nucléaire, Hospices Civils de Lyon and EA 3738, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Lyon, France Accepted 17 April 2014 Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 2. Choline-PET: do we need it in the initial diagnostic work-up of PC patients? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 2.1. Local disease evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 2.2. Detection of lymph node (LN) metastases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 2.3. Detection of bone metastases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 3. Choline-PET in patients with a rising PSA: when is it useful for radiation oncologists? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 4. Could androgen deprivation therapy influence the results of Choline-PET? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 5. Should Choline-PET be routinely used by radiation oncologists to improve treatment planning? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 5.1. Intraprostatic dose escalation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 5.2. Salvage RT for local failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 5.3. RT for lymph node metastases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 5.4. Reirradiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 Conflict of interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 Reviewers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 Biographies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 Abstract Among PET radiotracers, FDG seems to be quite accepted as an accurate oncology diagnostic tool, frequently helpful also in the evaluation of treatment response and in radiation therapy treatment planning for several cancer sites. To the contrary, the reliability of Choline as a tracer for prostate cancer (PC) still remains an object of debate for clinicians, including radiation oncologists. This review focuses on the available data about the potential impact of Choline-PET in the daily clinical practice of radiation oncologists managing PC patients. In summary, routine Choline-PET is not indicated for initial local T staging, but it seems better than conventional imaging for nodal staging and for all patients with suspected metastases. In these settings, Choline-PET showed the potential to change patient management. A critical limit remains spatial resolution, limiting the accuracy and reliability for small lesions. After a PSA rise, the problem of the trigger PSA value remains crucial. Indeed, the overall detection rate of Choline-PET is significantly increased when the trigger PSA, or the doubling ∗ Corresponding author at: Radiation Oncologist, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV), Service de radio-oncologie, Bâtiment hospitalier, Rue du Bugnon 46, CH-1011 Lausanne, Switzerland. Tel.: +41 021 314 46 00; fax: +41 021 314 46 01. E-mail address: berardino.de-bari@chuv.ch (B. De Bari). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2014.04.002 1040-8428/© 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.