PURPOSE: To assess whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (wb-MRI) for detection of biochemical recurrence in comparison to 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography (68Ga-PSMA PET/CT) in prostate cancer (Pca) patients after radical prostatectomy. METHODS: This was a prospective trial including 28 consecutive patients (mean age 65.3 ± 9.0 years) with newly documented biochemical recurrence of Pca (mean prostate-specific antigen, PSA, 2.09 ± 1.95 ng/ml) following radical prostatectomy. All patients underwent both wb-MRI including a dedicated pelvic imaging protocol and PET/CT with 166 ± 35 MBq 68Ga-PSMA within a time window of 11 ± 10 days. PET/CT and MRI datasets were separately evaluated regarding Pca lesion count, type, localization and diagnostic confidence (three-point Likert scale, 1-3) by two nuclear medicine specialists and two radiologists, respectively. The reference standard was based on histopathological results, PSA levels following targeted salvage irradiation and follow-up imaging. Lesion-based and patient-based detection rates were compared using the chi-squared test. Differences in diagnostic confidence were assessed using the Welch test. RESULTS: A total of 56 Pca lesions were detected in 20 of the 28 patients. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT detected 56 of 56 lesions (100%) in 20 patients (71.4%), while wb-MRI detected 13 lesions (23.2%) in 11 patients (39.3%). The higher detection rate with 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT was statistically significant on both a per-lesion basis (p < 0.001) and a per-patient basis (p = 0.0167). In 8 patients (28.6%) no relapse was detectable by either modality. All lesions detected by wb-MRI were also detected by 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT. Additionally, 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT provided superior diagnostic confidence in identifying Pca lesions (2.7 ± 0.7 vs. 2.3 ± 0.6, p = 0.044). CONCLUSION: 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT significantly out-performed wb-MRI in the detection of biochemical recurrence in Pca patients after radical prostatectomy.
PURPOSE: To assess whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (wb-MRI) for detection of biochemical recurrence in comparison to 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography (68Ga-PSMA PET/CT) in prostate cancer (Pca) patients after radical prostatectomy. METHODS: This was a prospective trial including 28 consecutive patients (mean age 65.3 ± 9.0 years) with newly documented biochemical recurrence of Pca (mean prostate-specific antigen, PSA, 2.09 ± 1.95 ng/ml) following radical prostatectomy. All patients underwent both wb-MRI including a dedicated pelvic imaging protocol and PET/CT with 166 ± 35 MBq 68Ga-PSMA within a time window of 11 ± 10 days. PET/CT and MRI datasets were separately evaluated regarding Pca lesion count, type, localization and diagnostic confidence (three-point Likert scale, 1-3) by two nuclear medicine specialists and two radiologists, respectively. The reference standard was based on histopathological results, PSA levels following targeted salvage irradiation and follow-up imaging. Lesion-based and patient-based detection rates were compared using the chi-squared test. Differences in diagnostic confidence were assessed using the Welch test. RESULTS: A total of 56 Pca lesions were detected in 20 of the 28 patients. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT detected 56 of 56 lesions (100%) in 20 patients (71.4%), while wb-MRI detected 13 lesions (23.2%) in 11 patients (39.3%). The higher detection rate with 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT was statistically significant on both a per-lesion basis (p < 0.001) and a per-patient basis (p = 0.0167). In 8 patients (28.6%) no relapse was detectable by either modality. All lesions detected by wb-MRI were also detected by 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT. Additionally, 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT provided superior diagnostic confidence in identifying Pca lesions (2.7 ± 0.7 vs. 2.3 ± 0.6, p = 0.044). CONCLUSION: 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT significantly out-performed wb-MRI in the detection of biochemical recurrence in Pca patients after radical prostatectomy.
Authors: Dan Leibovici; Philippe E Spiess; Lior Heller; Miguel Rodriguez-Bigas; George Chang; Louis L Pisters Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2007-10-18 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Gerwin P Schmidt; Stefan O Schoenberg; Rupert Schmid; Robert Stahl; Reinhold Tiling; Christoph R Becker; Maximilian F Reiser; Andrea Baur-Melnyk Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-09-02 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Bruce J Trock; Misop Han; Stephen J Freedland; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Theodore L DeWeese; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-06-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Nazareno Suardi; Christopher R Porter; Alwyn M Reuther; Jochen Walz; Koichi Kodama; Robert P Gibbons; Roy Correa; Francesco Montorsi; Markus Graefen; Hartwig Huland; Eric A Klein; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Andrew J Stephenson; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan; Thomas M Pisansky; Kevin M Slawin; Eric A Klein; Mitchell S Anscher; Jeff M Michalski; Howard M Sandler; Daniel W Lin; Jeffrey D Forman; Michael J Zelefsky; Larry L Kestin; Claus G Roehrborn; Charles N Catton; Theodore L DeWeese; Stanley L Liauw; Richard K Valicenti; Deborah A Kuban; Alan Pollack Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-05-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Christopher J Kane; Christopher L Amling; Peter A S Johnstone; Nali Pak; Raymond S Lance; J Brantley Thrasher; John P Foley; Robert H Riffenburgh; Judd W Moul Journal: Urology Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 2.649
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: James J Vornov; Diane Peters; Mike Nedelcovych; Kristen Hollinger; Rana Rais; Barbara S Slusher Journal: Neurochem Res Date: 2019-11-20 Impact factor: 3.996
Authors: Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Bernd Vollnberg; Ian Alberts; Alexandrine Bähler; Christos Sachpekidis; Lotte Dijkstra; Fabian Haupt; Silvan Boxler; Tobias Gross; Tim Holland-Letz; George Thalmann; Johannes Heverhagen; Axel Rominger; Kirsi Härmä; Martin H Maurer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-07-27 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Liza Lindenberg; Esther Mena; Baris Turkbey; Joanna H Shih; Sarah E Reese; Stephanie A Harmon; Ilhan Lim; Frank Lin; Anita Ton; Yolanda L McKinney; Philip Eclarinal; Deborah E Citrin; William Dahut; Ravi Madan; Bradford J Wood; Venkatesh Krishnasamy; Richard Chang; Elliot Levy; Peter Pinto; Janet F Eary; Peter L Choyke Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-07-07 Impact factor: 11.105