PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate potential differences in "Glu-NH-CO-NH-Lys" radio-labeled with [68Ga]gallium N,N-bis[2-hydroxy-5-(carboxyethyl)benzyl]ethylenediamine-N,N-diacetic acid ([68Ga]PSMA-HBED-CC) uptake in osteolytic, osteoblastic, mixed, and bone marrow metastases in prostate cancer (PC) patients. PROCEDURES: This retrospective study was approved by the local ethics committee. Patients who received [68Ga]PSMA-HBED-CC positron emission tomography/computed tomography ([68Ga]PSMA-PET/CT) with at least one positive bone metastasis were included in this study. Only patients who have not received systemic therapy for their PC were included. Bone metastases had to be confirmed by at least one other imaging modality or follow-up investigation. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and mean Hounsfield units (HUmean) of each metastasis were measured. Based on CT, each metastasis was classified as osteolytic (OL), osteoblastic (OB), bone marrow (BM), or mixed (M). RESULTS: One hundred fifty-four bone metastases in 30 patients were evaluated. Eighty out of 154 (51.9%) metastases were classified as OB, 21/154 (13.6%) as OL, 23/154 (14.9%) as M, and 30/154 (19.5%) as BM. The SUVmax for the different types of metastases were 10.6 ± 7.07 (OB), 24.0 ± 19.3 (OL), 16.0 ± 21.0 (M), and 14.7 ± 9.9 (BM). The SUVmax of OB vs. OL and OB vs. BM metastases differed significantly (p ≤ 0.025). A significant negative correlation between HUmean and SUVmax (r = -0.23, p < 0.05) was measured. CONCLUSIONS: [68Ga]PSMA-HBED-CC uptake is higher in osteolytic and bone marrow metastases compared to osteoblastic metastases. Information derived from [68Ga]PSMA-PET and CT complement each other for the reliable diagnosis of the different types of bone metastases in PC patients.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate potential differences in "Glu-NH-CO-NH-Lys" radio-labeled with [68Ga]gallium N,N-bis[2-hydroxy-5-(carboxyethyl)benzyl]ethylenediamine-N,N-diacetic acid ([68Ga]PSMA-HBED-CC) uptake in osteolytic, osteoblastic, mixed, and bone marrow metastases in prostate cancer (PC) patients. PROCEDURES: This retrospective study was approved by the local ethics committee. Patients who received [68Ga]PSMA-HBED-CC positron emission tomography/computed tomography ([68Ga]PSMA-PET/CT) with at least one positive bone metastasis were included in this study. Only patients who have not received systemic therapy for their PC were included. Bone metastases had to be confirmed by at least one other imaging modality or follow-up investigation. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and mean Hounsfield units (HUmean) of each metastasis were measured. Based on CT, each metastasis was classified as osteolytic (OL), osteoblastic (OB), bone marrow (BM), or mixed (M). RESULTS: One hundred fifty-four bone metastases in 30 patients were evaluated. Eighty out of 154 (51.9%) metastases were classified as OB, 21/154 (13.6%) as OL, 23/154 (14.9%) as M, and 30/154 (19.5%) as BM. The SUVmax for the different types of metastases were 10.6 ± 7.07 (OB), 24.0 ± 19.3 (OL), 16.0 ± 21.0 (M), and 14.7 ± 9.9 (BM). The SUVmax of OB vs. OL and OB vs. BM metastases differed significantly (p ≤ 0.025). A significant negative correlation between HUmean and SUVmax (r = -0.23, p < 0.05) was measured. CONCLUSIONS: [68Ga]PSMA-HBED-CC uptake is higher in osteolytic and bone marrow metastases compared to osteoblastic metastases. Information derived from [68Ga]PSMA-PET and CT complement each other for the reliable diagnosis of the different types of bone metastases in PC patients.
Authors: Wolfgang Peter Fendler; Jeremie Calais; Martin Allen-Auerbach; Christina Bluemel; Nina Eberhardt; Louise Emmett; Pawan Gupta; Markus Hartenbach; Thomas A Hope; Shozo Okamoto; Christian Helmut Pfob; Thorsten D Pöppel; Christoph Rischpler; Sarah Schwarzenböck; Vanessa Stebner; Marcus Unterrainer; Helle D Zacho; Tobias Maurer; Christian Gratzke; Alexander Crispin; Johannes Czernin; Ken Herrmann; Matthias Eiber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Martina Benešová; Martin Schäfer; Ulrike Bauder-Wüst; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Clemens Kratochwil; Walter Mier; Uwe Haberkorn; Klaus Kopka; Matthias Eder Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Shozo Okamoto; Anne Thieme; Jakob Allmann; Calogero D'Alessandria; Tobias Maurer; Margitta Retz; Robert Tauber; Matthias M Heck; Hans-Juergen Wester; Nagara Tamaki; Wolfgang P Fendler; Ken Herrmann; Christian H Pfob; Klemens Scheidhauer; Markus Schwaiger; Sibylle Ziegler; Matthias Eiber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-09-22 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Hojjat Ahmadzadehfar; Kambiz Azgomi; Stefan Hauser; Xiao Wei; Anna Yordanova; Florian C Gaertner; Stefan Kürpig; Holger Strunk; Markus Essler Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-09-22 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: A Afshar-Oromieh; A Malcher; M Eder; M Eisenhut; H G Linhart; B A Hadaschik; T Holland-Letz; F L Giesel; C Kratochwil; S Haufe; U Haberkorn; C M Zechmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-11-24 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Markus Dietlein; Carsten Kobe; Georg Kuhnert; Simone Stockter; Thomas Fischer; Klaus Schomäcker; Matthias Schmidt; Felix Dietlein; Boris D Zlatopolskiy; Philipp Krapf; Raphael Richarz; Stephan Neubauer; Alexander Drzezga; Bernd Neumaier Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Christian Uprimny; Anna Svirydenka; Josef Fritz; Alexander Stephan Kroiss; Bernhard Nilica; Clemens Decristoforo; Roland Haubner; Elisabeth von Guggenberg; Sabine Buxbaum; Wolfgang Horninger; Irene Johanna Virgolini Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Barbara J Amorim; Vinay Prabhu; Sara S Marco; Debra Gervais; Willian E Palmer; Pedram Heidari; Mark Vangel; Philip J Saylor; Onofrio A Catalano Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-09-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Felipe de Galiza Barbosa; Marcelo Araujo Queiroz; Rafael Fernandes Nunes; Larissa Bastos Costa; Elaine Caroline Zaniboni; José Flavio Gomes Marin; Giovanni Guido Cerri; Carlos Alberto Buchpiguel Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2020-03-14 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: Esther Mena; Peter C Black; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Michael Gorin; Mohamad Allaf; Peter Choyke Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-07-15 Impact factor: 4.226