PURPOSE: One of the major challenges for all imaging modalities is accurate detection of prostate cancer (PCa) recurrence. Beyond the established Ga-PSMA, a novel promising PET tracer in PCa imaging is F-fluciclovine. For evaluating the advantages and disadvantages and the comparability, we conducted a prospective head-to-head comparison on F-fluciclovine and Ga-PSMA-11 in patients with biochemical recurrence of PCa. METHODS: 58 patients with biochemical recurrence of PCa after definitive primary therapy were included. Both scans were performed within a time window of mean 9.4 days. All scans were visually analyzed independently on a patient-, region- and lesion-based analysis. All the examinations were performed in the same medical department using identical scanners at any time. RESULTS: The overall detection rate for PCa recurrence was 79.3% in F-fluciclovine and 82.8% in Ga-PSMA-11 (P = 0.64). Local recurrence was detected in 37.9% on F-fluciclovine and in 27.6% on Ga-PSMA-11 (P = 0.03). Local pelvic lymph node recurrence was detected on F-fluciclovine versus Ga-PSMA-11 in 46.6% versus 50%, in extrapelvic lymph node metastases in 41.4% versus 51.7% and in bone metastases in 25.9% versus 36.2%. Lesion-based analysis showed identical findings in local pelvic lymph nodes in 39.7%, in extrapelvic lymph nodes in 22.4%, and in bone metastases in 13.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The advantage of F-fluciclovine is detecting curable localized disease in close anatomical relation to the urinary bladder, whereas Ga-PSMA-11 fails because of accumulation of activity in the urinary bladder. F-fluciclovine is almost equivalent to Ga-PSMA-11 in detecting distant metastases of PCa recurrence.
PURPOSE: One of the major challenges for all imaging modalities is accurate detection of prostate cancer (PCa) recurrence. Beyond the established Ga-PSMA, a novel promising PET tracer in PCa imaging is F-fluciclovine. For evaluating the advantages and disadvantages and the comparability, we conducted a prospective head-to-head comparison on F-fluciclovine and Ga-PSMA-11 in patients with biochemical recurrence of PCa. METHODS: 58 patients with biochemical recurrence of PCa after definitive primary therapy were included. Both scans were performed within a time window of mean 9.4 days. All scans were visually analyzed independently on a patient-, region- and lesion-based analysis. All the examinations were performed in the same medical department using identical scanners at any time. RESULTS: The overall detection rate for PCa recurrence was 79.3% in F-fluciclovine and 82.8% in Ga-PSMA-11 (P = 0.64). Local recurrence was detected in 37.9% on F-fluciclovine and in 27.6% on Ga-PSMA-11 (P = 0.03). Local pelvic lymph node recurrence was detected on F-fluciclovine versus Ga-PSMA-11 in 46.6% versus 50%, in extrapelvic lymph node metastases in 41.4% versus 51.7% and in bone metastases in 25.9% versus 36.2%. Lesion-based analysis showed identical findings in local pelvic lymph nodes in 39.7%, in extrapelvic lymph nodes in 22.4%, and in bone metastases in 13.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The advantage of F-fluciclovine is detecting curable localized disease in close anatomical relation to the urinary bladder, whereas Ga-PSMA-11 fails because of accumulation of activity in the urinary bladder. F-fluciclovine is almost equivalent to Ga-PSMA-11 in detecting distant metastases of PCa recurrence.
Authors: Frédéric Bois; Camille Noirot; Sébastien Dietemann; Ismini C Mainta; Thomas Zilli; Valentina Garibotto; Martin A Walter Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-12-15
Authors: Ahmed Ebada Salem; Gabriel C Fine; Matthew F Covington; Bhasker R Koppula; Richard H Wiggins; John M Hoffman; Kathryn A Morton Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-06-18 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Gaurav Malviya; Rachana Patel; Mark Salji; Rafael S Martinez; Peter Repiscak; Ernest Mui; Susan Champion; Agata Mrowinska; Emma Johnson; Maha AlRasheedi; Sally Pimlott; David Lewis; Hing Y Leung Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2020-11-25 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Ashesh B Jani; Eduard Schreibmann; Subir Goyal; Raghuveer Halkar; Bruce Hershatter; Peter J Rossi; Joseph W Shelton; Pretesh R Patel; Karen M Xu; Mark Goodman; Viraj A Master; Shreyas S Joshi; Omer Kucuk; Bradley C Carthon; Mehmet A Bilen; Olayinka A Abiodun-Ojo; Akinyemi A Akintayo; Vishal R Dhere; David M Schuster Journal: Lancet Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Olayinka A Abiodun-Ojo; Ashesh B Jani; Akinyemi A Akintayo; Oladunni O Akin-Akintayo; Oluwaseun A Odewole; Funmilayo I Tade; Shreyas S Joshi; Viraj A Master; Bridget Fielder; Raghuveer K Halkar; Chao Zhang; Subir Goyal; Mark M Goodman; David M Schuster Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-01-30 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ian Leigh Alberts; Svenja Elizabeth Seide; Clemens Mingels; Karl Peter Bohn; Kuangyu Shi; Helle D Zacho; Axel Rominger; Ali Afshar-Oromieh Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-02-06 Impact factor: 9.236