Daniele A Pizzuto1,2, Julian Müller1, Urs Mühlematter1, Niels J Rupp3, Antonia Töpfer3, Ashkan Mortezavi4, Hannes Nagel1, Benedikt Kranzbühler4, Daniel Eberli4, Irene A Burger5. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zürich, Switzerland. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy. 3. Department of Pathology and Molecular Pathology, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zürich, Switzerland. 4. Department of Urology, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zürich, Switzerland. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zürich, Switzerland. Irene.burger@usz.ch.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Given the good correlation between PSMA expression and intraglandular tumour aggressiveness based on immunohistochemistry, there is increasing interest in 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI for staging prostate cancer (PCA). Therefore, accurate knowledge of prostate anatomy as well as normal distribution of PSMA within the prostate gland is becoming essential. The aim of this study was to investigate the physiological intraprostatic distribution of 68Ga-PSMA-11. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed all patients who underwent a staging 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI scan between June 2016 and January 2018 for high-risk PCA, underwent radical prostatectomy in our institution, and gave written consent for further data analysis. In each patient, standardized volumes of interest (VOIs) were placed bilaterally in the central, transition and peripheral zones within the zonal anatomy according to T2 weighted sequences in the axial and coronal planes. VOIs were only placed if they were safely within healthy tissue without spillover from the PCA. SUVmax and SUVmean were determined and their differences among the regions were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test. RESULTS: Of 283 consecutive patients scanned with 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MR, 31 were analysed. A total of 133 VOIs were placed, 46 in the central zone, 41 in the transition zone and 46 in the peripheral zone. Differences in SUVmax between the central zone (mean 3.9 ± 0.58) and transition zone (mean 3.2 ± 0.59) and between the central zone and peripheral zone (mean 2.7 ± 0.54) were statistically significant (both p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that higher 68Ga-PSMA-11 accumulation in the central zone than in the transition and peripheral zones is normal, and leads to a pattern resembling "Mickey Mouse ears" on 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET. This pattern could be helpful in avoiding false-positive interpretations of PET scans.
PURPOSE: Given the good correlation between PSMA expression and intraglandular tumour aggressiveness based on immunohistochemistry, there is increasing interest in 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI for staging prostate cancer (PCA). Therefore, accurate knowledge of prostate anatomy as well as normal distribution of PSMA within the prostate gland is becoming essential. The aim of this study was to investigate the physiological intraprostatic distribution of 68Ga-PSMA-11. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed all patients who underwent a staging 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI scan between June 2016 and January 2018 for high-risk PCA, underwent radical prostatectomy in our institution, and gave written consent for further data analysis. In each patient, standardized volumes of interest (VOIs) were placed bilaterally in the central, transition and peripheral zones within the zonal anatomy according to T2 weighted sequences in the axial and coronal planes. VOIs were only placed if they were safely within healthy tissue without spillover from the PCA. SUVmax and SUVmean were determined and their differences among the regions were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test. RESULTS: Of 283 consecutive patients scanned with 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MR, 31 were analysed. A total of 133 VOIs were placed, 46 in the central zone, 41 in the transition zone and 46 in the peripheral zone. Differences in SUVmax between the central zone (mean 3.9 ± 0.58) and transition zone (mean 3.2 ± 0.59) and between the central zone and peripheral zone (mean 2.7 ± 0.54) were statistically significant (both p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that higher 68Ga-PSMA-11 accumulation in the central zone than in the transition and peripheral zones is normal, and leads to a pattern resembling "Mickey Mouse ears" on 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET. This pattern could be helpful in avoiding false-positive interpretations of PET scans.
Entities:
Keywords:
False-positive; Normal distribution; PET/MR; Prostate cancer; Staging
Authors: Tetsuro Sekine; Felipe de Galiza Barbosa; Bert-Ram Sah; Cäcilia E Mader; Gaspar Delso; Irene A Burger; Paul Stolzmann; Edwin E Ter Voert; Gustav K von Schulthess; Patrick Veit-Haibach; Martin W Huellner Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: A Afshar-Oromieh; U Haberkorn; H P Schlemmer; M Fenchel; M Eder; M Eisenhut; B A Hadaschik; A Kopp-Schneider; M Röthke Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-12-19 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Anton S Becker; Alexander Cornelius; Cäcilia S Reiner; Daniel Stocker; Erika J Ulbrich; Borna K Barth; Ashkan Mortezavi; Daniel Eberli; Olivio F Donati Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2017-07-21 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Christian Uprimny; Alexander Stephan Kroiss; Clemens Decristoforo; Josef Fritz; Elisabeth von Guggenberg; Dorota Kendler; Lorenza Scarpa; Gianpaolo di Santo; Llanos Geraldo Roig; Johanna Maffey-Steffan; Wolfgang Horninger; Irene Johanna Virgolini Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Hebert Alberto Vargas; Oguz Akin; Tobias Franiel; Debra A Goldman; Kazuma Udo; Karim A Touijer; Victor E Reuter; Hedvig Hricak Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: C Marchal; M Redondo; M Padilla; J Caballero; I Rodrigo; J García; J Quian; D G Boswick Journal: Histol Histopathol Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Tim Holland-Letz; Frederik L Giesel; Clemens Kratochwil; Walter Mier; Sabine Haufe; Nils Debus; Matthias Eder; Michael Eisenhut; Martin Schäfer; Oliver Neels; Markus Hohenfellner; Klaus Kopka; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Jürgen Debus; Uwe Haberkorn Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Daniela A Ferraro; Andreas M Hötker; Olivio F Donati; Irene A Burger; Anton S Becker; Iliana Mebert; Riccardo Laudicella; Anka Baltensperger; Niels J Rupp; Jan H Rueschoff; Julian Müller; Ashkan Mortezavi; Marcelo T Sapienza; Daniel Eberli Journal: Eur J Hybrid Imaging Date: 2022-07-18
Authors: Laura Evangelista; Fabio Zattoni; Gianluca Cassarino; Paolo Artioli; Diego Cecchin; Fabrizio Dal Moro; Pietro Zucchetta Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-09-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ken Kudura; Tobias Oblasser; Daniela A Ferraro; Caecilia E Mader; Lars Husmann; Kerstin Friedrich; Edwin E G W Ter Voert; Irene A Burger Journal: Eur J Hybrid Imaging Date: 2020-04-09
Authors: Daniel Eberli; Irene A Burger; Daniela A Ferraro; Anton S Becker; Benedikt Kranzbühler; Iliana Mebert; Anka Baltensperger; Konstantinos G Zeimpekis; Hannes Grünig; Michael Messerli; Niels J Rupp; Jan H Rueschoff; Ashkan Mortezavi; Olivio F Donati; Marcelo T Sapienza Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-02-23 Impact factor: 9.236