PURPOSE: This study compared 68Gallium-prostate-specific-membrane-antigen based Positron-emission-tomography (68Ga-PSMA-PET) and 99metastabletechnetium-3,3-diphospho-1,2-propanedicarbonacid (99mTc-DPD-SPECT) in performing skeletal staging in prostate cancer (PC) patients and evaluated the additional value of the information from low-dose-computed tomography (CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, 54 patients who received 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT and 99mTc-DPD-SPECT/CT within 80 days were extracted from our database. Osseous lesions were classified as benign, malignant or equivocal. Lesion, region and patient based analysis was performed with and without CT fusion. The reference standard was generated by defining a best valuable comparator (BVC) containing information from all available data. RESULTS: In the patient based analysis, accuracies measured as "area-under-the-curve" (AUC) for 68Ga-PSMA-PET, 99mTc-SPECT, 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT and 99mTc-SPECT/CT were 0.97-0.96, 0.86-0.83, 1.00 and 0.83, respectively (p<0.05) (ranges = optimistic vs. pessimistic view). Region based analysis resulted in the following sensitivities and specificities: 91.8-97.7%, 100-99.5% (PET); 61.2-70.6%, 99.8-98.3% (SPECT); 97.7%, 100% (PET/CT), 69.4% and 98.3% (SPECT/CT) (p<0.05). The amount of correct classifications of equivocal lesions by CT was significantly higher in PET (100%) compared to SPECT (52.4%) (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: 68Ga-PSMA-PET outperforms 99mTc-DPD-SPECT in detecting bone metastases in PC patients. Additional information from low-dose-CT resulted in a significant reduction in equivocal lesions in both modalities, however 68Ga-PSMA-PET benefited most. KEY POINTS: • Ga-PSMA-PET outperforms 99m Tc-DPD-SPECT in skeletal staging in prostate cancer patients • Proportion of equivocal decisions was significantly reduced by CT-fusion in both modalities • Ga-PSMA-PET benefits more from CT information, compared to 99m Tc-DPD-SPECT.
PURPOSE: This study compared 68Gallium-prostate-specific-membrane-antigen based Positron-emission-tomography (68Ga-PSMA-PET) and 99metastabletechnetium-3,3-diphospho-1,2-propanedicarbonacid (99mTc-DPD-SPECT) in performing skeletal staging in prostate cancer (PC) patients and evaluated the additional value of the information from low-dose-computed tomography (CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, 54 patients who received 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT and 99mTc-DPD-SPECT/CT within 80 days were extracted from our database. Osseous lesions were classified as benign, malignant or equivocal. Lesion, region and patient based analysis was performed with and without CT fusion. The reference standard was generated by defining a best valuable comparator (BVC) containing information from all available data. RESULTS: In the patient based analysis, accuracies measured as "area-under-the-curve" (AUC) for 68Ga-PSMA-PET, 99mTc-SPECT, 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT and 99mTc-SPECT/CT were 0.97-0.96, 0.86-0.83, 1.00 and 0.83, respectively (p<0.05) (ranges = optimistic vs. pessimistic view). Region based analysis resulted in the following sensitivities and specificities: 91.8-97.7%, 100-99.5% (PET); 61.2-70.6%, 99.8-98.3% (SPECT); 97.7%, 100% (PET/CT), 69.4% and 98.3% (SPECT/CT) (p<0.05). The amount of correct classifications of equivocal lesions by CT was significantly higher in PET (100%) compared to SPECT (52.4%) (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: 68Ga-PSMA-PET outperforms 99mTc-DPD-SPECT in detecting bone metastases in PC patients. Additional information from low-dose-CT resulted in a significant reduction in equivocal lesions in both modalities, however 68Ga-PSMA-PET benefited most. KEY POINTS: • Ga-PSMA-PET outperforms 99m Tc-DPD-SPECT in skeletal staging in prostate cancerpatients • Proportion of equivocal decisions was significantly reduced by CT-fusion in both modalities • Ga-PSMA-PET benefits more from CT information, compared to 99m Tc-DPD-SPECT.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone tissue; Neoplasm metastasis; PSMA; Positron emission tomography computed tomography; Prostatic neoplasms; Single photon emission computed tomography
Authors: H Schirrmeister; G Glatting; J Hetzel; K Nüssle; C Arslandemir; A K Buck; K Dziuk; A Gabelmann; S N Reske; M Hetzel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ivan Jambor; Anna Kuisma; Susan Ramadan; Riikka Huovinen; Minna Sandell; Sami Kajander; Jukka Kemppainen; Esa Kauppila; Joakim Auren; Harri Merisaari; Jani Saunavaara; Tommi Noponen; Heikki Minn; Hannu J Aronen; Marko Seppänen Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2015-04-02 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Ian Thompson; James Brantley Thrasher; Gunnar Aus; Arthur L Burnett; Edith D Canby-Hagino; Michael S Cookson; Anthony V D'Amico; Roger R Dmochowski; David T Eton; Jeffrey D Forman; S Larry Goldenberg; Javier Hernandez; Celestia S Higano; Stephen R Kraus; Judd W Moul; Catherine M Tangen Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 7.450
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: Eva Dyrberg; Helle W Hendel; Tri Hien Viet Huynh; Tobias Wirenfeldt Klausen; Vibeke B Løgager; Claus Madsen; Erik M Pedersen; Maria Pedersen; Henrik S Thomsen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-08-21 Impact factor: 5.315
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: Chen Liu; Teli Liu; Ning Zhang; Yiqiang Liu; Nan Li; Peng Du; Yong Yang; Ming Liu; Kan Gong; Xing Yang; Hua Zhu; Kun Yan; Zhi Yang Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 9.236