Lino M Sawicki1, Christian Buchbender2, Johannes Boos2, Markus Giessing3, Johannes Ermert4, Christina Antke5, Gerald Antoch2, Hubertus Hautzel5. 1. Medical Faculty, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Moorenstrasse 5, 40225, Dusseldorf, Germany. linomorris.sawicki@med.uni-duesseldorf.de. 2. Medical Faculty, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Moorenstrasse 5, 40225, Dusseldorf, Germany. 3. Medical Faculty, Department of Urology, University Dusseldorf, 40225, Dusseldorf, Germany. 4. Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine, INM-5: Nuclear Chemistry, Juelich Research Center, 52425, Juelich, Germany. 5. Medical Faculty, Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Dusseldorf, 40225, Dusseldorf, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic potential of whole-body PET/CT using a 68Ga-labelled PSMA ligand in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: Six patients with histopathologically proven RCC underwent 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT. Each PET/CT scan was evaluated in relation to lesion count, location and dignity. SUVmax was measured in primary tumours and PET-positive metastases. Tumour-to-background SUVmax ratios (TBRSUVmax) were calculated for primary RCCs in relation to the surrounding normal renal parenchyma. Metastasis-to-background SUVmax ratios (MBRSUVmax) were calculated for PET-positive metastases in relation to gluteal muscle. RESULTS: Five primary RCCs and 16 metastases were evaluated. The mean SUVmax of the primary RCCs was 9.9 ± 9.2 (range 1.7 - 27.2). Due to high uptake in the surrounding renal parenchyma, the mean TBRSUVmax of the primary RCCs was only 0.2 ± 0.3 (range 0.02 - 0.7). Eight metastases showed focal 68Ga-PSMA uptake (SUVmax 9.9 ± 8.3, range 3.4 - 25.6). The mean MBRSUVmax of these PET-positive metastases was 11.7 ± 0.2 (range 4.4 - 28.1). All PET-negative metastases were subcentimetre lung metastases. CONCLUSION: 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT appears to be a promising method for detecting RCC metastases. However, no additional diagnostic value in assessing the primary tumour was found.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic potential of whole-body PET/CT using a 68Ga-labelled PSMA ligand in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: Six patients with histopathologically proven RCC underwent 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT. Each PET/CT scan was evaluated in relation to lesion count, location and dignity. SUVmax was measured in primary tumours and PET-positive metastases. Tumour-to-background SUVmax ratios (TBRSUVmax) were calculated for primary RCCs in relation to the surrounding normal renal parenchyma. Metastasis-to-background SUVmax ratios (MBRSUVmax) were calculated for PET-positive metastases in relation to gluteal muscle. RESULTS: Five primary RCCs and 16 metastases were evaluated. The mean SUVmax of the primary RCCs was 9.9 ± 9.2 (range 1.7 - 27.2). Due to high uptake in the surrounding renal parenchyma, the mean TBRSUVmax of the primary RCCs was only 0.2 ± 0.3 (range 0.02 - 0.7). Eight metastases showed focal 68Ga-PSMA uptake (SUVmax 9.9 ± 8.3, range 3.4 - 25.6). The mean MBRSUVmax of these PET-positive metastases was 11.7 ± 0.2 (range 4.4 - 28.1). All PET-negative metastases were subcentimetre lung metastases. CONCLUSION: 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT appears to be a promising method for detecting RCC metastases. However, no additional diagnostic value in assessing the primary tumour was found.
Authors: Steven P Rowe; Michael A Gorin; Hans J Hammers; M Som Javadi; Hazem Hawasli; Zsolt Szabo; Steve Y Cho; Martin G Pomper; Mohamad E Allaf Journal: Ann Nucl Med Date: 2015-08-19 Impact factor: 2.668
Authors: Steven P Rowe; Michael A Gorin; Hans J Hammers; Martin G Pomper; Mohammad E Allaf; Mehrbod Som Javadi Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Karsten Beiderwellen; Johannes Grueneisen; Verena Ruhlmann; Paul Buderath; Bahriye Aktas; Philipp Heusch; Oliver Kraff; Michael Forsting; Thomas C Lauenstein; Lale Umutlu Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Navneet S Majhail; Jean-Luc Urbain; Justin M Albani; Mangesh H Kanvinde; Thomas W Rice; Andrew C Novick; Tarek M Mekhail; Thomas E Olencki; Paul Elson; Ronald M Bukowski Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-11-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Yafu Yin; Scott P Campbell; Mark C Markowski; Philip M Pierorazio; Martin G Pomper; Mohamad E Allaf; Steven P Rowe; Michael A Gorin Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Wolfgang P Fendler; Matthias Eiber; Mohsen Beheshti; Jamshed Bomanji; Francesco Ceci; Steven Cho; Frederik Giesel; Uwe Haberkorn; Thomas A Hope; Klaus Kopka; Bernd J Krause; Felix M Mottaghy; Heiko Schöder; John Sunderland; Simon Wan; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Stefano Fanti; Ken Herrmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Frédéric Bois; Camille Noirot; Sébastien Dietemann; Ismini C Mainta; Thomas Zilli; Valentina Garibotto; Martin A Walter Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-12-15
Authors: Chiara Pozzessere; Maria Bassanelli; Anna Ceribelli; Sazan Rasul; Shuren Li; John O Prior; Francesco Cicone Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2019-10-11 Impact factor: 3.092
Authors: Scott P Campbell; Alexander S Baras; Mark W Ball; Max Kates; Noah M Hahn; Trinity J Bivalacqua; Michael H Johnson; Martin G Pomper; Mohamad E Allaf; Steven P Rowe; Michael A Gorin Journal: Ann Nucl Med Date: 2017-10-24 Impact factor: 2.668
Authors: Michael A Gorin; Steven P Rowe; Jody E Hooper; Max Kates; Hans-Joerg Hammers; Zsolt Szabo; Martin G Pomper; Mohamad E Allaf Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-06-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Philipp Backhaus; Benjamin Noto; Nemanja Avramovic; Lena Sophie Grubert; Sebastian Huss; Martin Bögemann; Lars Stegger; Matthias Weckesser; Michael Schäfers; Kambiz Rahbar Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-01-15 Impact factor: 9.236