Niall Fennessy1, Jonathan Lee1, Jane Shin1, Bao Ho1, Syed Aman Ali1, Royce Paschkewitz1, Louise Emmett2,3. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, St Vincent's Public Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 2. University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 3. Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: 68 Ga-PSMA positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT) is useful for both staging and assessment of biochemical relapse in men with prostate cancer. Renal excretion of 68 Ga-PSMA can lead to difficulties in scan interpretation, particularly in the pelvis. We evaluated if intravenous Frusemide at the time of 68 Ga-PSMA injection reduces excreted activity artefact and improves diagnostic certainty. METHODS: Sixty-two men with prostate cancer undergoing clinically indicated 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT were prospectively included, 30 men receiving Frusemide at the time of radiotracer injection. Clinical information and reasons for the scan were documented. Intensity of excreted activity was assessed semi quantitatively for each patient (SUV max). PET/CT images were interpreted by two experienced readers for image quality, and presence/absence of PSMA-positive disease. RESULTS: Twenty-nine percent (18/62) were staging scans, and 71% (44/62) re-staging. PSMA-positive findings were identified in 95% (59/62). Staging scans had PSMA-positive findings within the prostate in 100% (18/18) and re-staging scans, 50% (22/44) in the prostate fossa, 64% (28/44) in lymph nodes and 21% (9/44) in viscera and bone. Administration of Frusemide had a significant impact on intensity of excreted activity in the ureters and bladder. Impaired image quality was noted in 33% (10/30) of men not given Frusemide, compared to only 3% (1/32) in men given Frusemide (P = 0.002). Reporter confidence on the presence/absence of PSMA avid disease in the prostate fossa improved from 63% (19/30) without Frusemide, to 91% (29/32) with Frusemide (P < 0.015). CONCLUSION: Intravenous Frusemide given with 68 Ga-PSMA reduces excretion artefact, and improves diagnostic certainty. Frusemide should be considered for all 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT imaging protocols.
INTRODUCTION: 68 Ga-PSMA positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT) is useful for both staging and assessment of biochemical relapse in men with prostate cancer. Renal excretion of 68 Ga-PSMA can lead to difficulties in scan interpretation, particularly in the pelvis. We evaluated if intravenous Frusemide at the time of 68 Ga-PSMA injection reduces excreted activity artefact and improves diagnostic certainty. METHODS: Sixty-two men with prostate cancer undergoing clinically indicated 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT were prospectively included, 30 men receiving Frusemide at the time of radiotracer injection. Clinical information and reasons for the scan were documented. Intensity of excreted activity was assessed semi quantitatively for each patient (SUV max). PET/CT images were interpreted by two experienced readers for image quality, and presence/absence of PSMA-positive disease. RESULTS: Twenty-nine percent (18/62) were staging scans, and 71% (44/62) re-staging. PSMA-positive findings were identified in 95% (59/62). Staging scans had PSMA-positive findings within the prostate in 100% (18/18) and re-staging scans, 50% (22/44) in the prostate fossa, 64% (28/44) in lymph nodes and 21% (9/44) in viscera and bone. Administration of Frusemide had a significant impact on intensity of excreted activity in the ureters and bladder. Impaired image quality was noted in 33% (10/30) of men not given Frusemide, compared to only 3% (1/32) in men given Frusemide (P = 0.002). Reporter confidence on the presence/absence of PSMA avid disease in the prostate fossa improved from 63% (19/30) without Frusemide, to 91% (29/32) with Frusemide (P < 0.015). CONCLUSION: Intravenous Frusemide given with 68 Ga-PSMA reduces excretion artefact, and improves diagnostic certainty. Frusemide should be considered for all 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT imaging protocols.
Authors: Christian Uprimny; Steffen Bayerschmidt; Alexander Stephan Kroiss; Josef Fritz; Bernhard Nilica; Anna Svirydenka; Clemens Decristoforo; Gianpaolo di Santo; Elisabeth von Guggenberg; Wolfgang Horninger; Irene Johanna Virgolini Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Evyn G Arnfield; Paul A Thomas; Matthew J Roberts; Anita M Pelecanos; Stuart C Ramsay; Charles Y Lin; Melissa J Latter; Peter L Garcia; David A Pattison Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Christian Uprimny; Steffen Bayerschmidt; Alexander Stephan Kroiss; Josef Fritz; Bernhard Nilica; Hanna Svirydenka; Clemens Decristoforo; Elisabeth von Guggenberg; Wolfgang Horninger; Irene Johanna Virgolini Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-03-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Maarten L Donswijk; Maurits Wondergem; Linda de Wit-van der Veen; Natascha M Bruin; Pim J van Leeuwen; Henk G van der Poel; Marcel P M Stokkel; Wouter V Vogel Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2022-07-27 Impact factor: 3.434
Authors: Wolfgang P Fendler; Jeremie Calais; Matthias Eiber; Jeffrey P Simko; John Kurhanewicz; Romelyn Delos Santos; Felix Y Feng; Robert E Reiter; Matthew B Rettig; Nicholas G Nickols; Amar U Kishan; Roger Slavik; Peter R Carroll; Courtney Lawhn-Heath; Ken Herrmann; Johannes Czernin; Thomas A Hope Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-08-17 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Steffen Bayerschmidt; Christian Uprimny; Alexander Stephan Kroiss; Josef Fritz; Bernhard Nilica; Hanna Svirydenka; Clemens Decristoforo; Elisabeth von Guggenberg; Wolfgang Horninger; Irene Johanna Virgolini Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-06-30