Ali Afshar-Oromieh1,2, Bernd Vollnberg3, Ian Alberts3, Alexandrine Bähler4, Christos Sachpekidis3, Lotte Dijkstra3, Fabian Haupt4, Silvan Boxler5, Tobias Gross5, Tim Holland-Letz6, George Thalmann5, Johannes Heverhagen4, Axel Rominger3, Kirsi Härmä4, Martin H Maurer4. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. ali.afshar@insel.ch. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, INF 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. ali.afshar@insel.ch. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 4. Department of Radiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 5. Department of Urology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 6. Department of Biostatistics, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: So far, there have been very few studies which provide a direct comparison between MRI and PSMA-ligand PET/CT for the detection of recurrent prostate cancer (rPC). This present study therefore aims to provide further clinical data in order to resolve this urgent clinical question, and thereby strengthen clinical recommendations. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed for patients who were scanned at our institution with whole-body PSMA-PET/CT (tracer: 68Ga-PSMA-11) between January 2017 and September 2018 in order to detect rPC. Amongst them, 43 underwent an additional pelvic MRI within 2 months. Both modalities were compared as follows: a consensus read of the PET data was performed by two nuclear physicians. All lesions were recorded with respect to their type and localization. The same process was conducted by two radiologists for pelvic MRI. Thereafter, both modalities were directly compared for every patient and lesion. RESULTS: Overall, 30/43 patients (69.8%) presented with a pathologic MRI and 38/43 (88.4%) with a pathologic PSMA-PET/CT of the pelvis. MRI detected 53 pelvic rPC lesions (13 of them classified as "uncertain") and PSMA-PET/CT detected 75 pelvic lesions (three classified as "uncertain"). The superiority of PSMA-PET/CT was statistically significant only if uncertain lesions were classified as false-positive. CONCLUSIONS: PSMA-PET/CT detected more pelvic lesions characteristic for rPC when compared to MRI. In order to detect rPC, a potential future scenario could be conducting first a PSMA-PET/CT. Combining the advantages of both modalities in hybrid PET/MRI scanners would be an ideal future scenario.
PURPOSE: So far, there have been very few studies which provide a direct comparison between MRI and PSMA-ligand PET/CT for the detection of recurrent prostate cancer (rPC). This present study therefore aims to provide further clinical data in order to resolve this urgent clinical question, and thereby strengthen clinical recommendations. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed for patients who were scanned at our institution with whole-body PSMA-PET/CT (tracer: 68Ga-PSMA-11) between January 2017 and September 2018 in order to detect rPC. Amongst them, 43 underwent an additional pelvic MRI within 2 months. Both modalities were compared as follows: a consensus read of the PET data was performed by two nuclear physicians. All lesions were recorded with respect to their type and localization. The same process was conducted by two radiologists for pelvic MRI. Thereafter, both modalities were directly compared for every patient and lesion. RESULTS: Overall, 30/43 patients (69.8%) presented with a pathologic MRI and 38/43 (88.4%) with a pathologic PSMA-PET/CT of the pelvis. MRI detected 53 pelvic rPC lesions (13 of them classified as "uncertain") and PSMA-PET/CT detected 75 pelvic lesions (three classified as "uncertain"). The superiority of PSMA-PET/CT was statistically significant only if uncertain lesions were classified as false-positive. CONCLUSIONS:PSMA-PET/CT detected more pelvic lesions characteristic for rPC when compared to MRI. In order to detect rPC, a potential future scenario could be conducting first a PSMA-PET/CT. Combining the advantages of both modalities in hybrid PET/MRI scanners would be an ideal future scenario.
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: Nicolas Mottet; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Erik Briers; Marcus G Cumberbatch; Maria De Santis; Nicola Fossati; Tobias Gross; Ann M Henry; Steven Joniau; Thomas B Lam; Malcolm D Mason; Vsevolod B Matveev; Paul C Moldovan; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Thomas Van den Broeck; Henk G van der Poel; Theo H van der Kwast; Olivier Rouvière; Ivo G Schoots; Thomas Wiegel; Philip Cornford Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Martin C S Wong; William B Goggins; Harry H X Wang; Franklin D H Fung; Colette Leung; Samuel Y S Wong; Chi Fai Ng; Joseph J Y Sung Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Tobias Maurer; Gregor Weirich; Margret Schottelius; Martina Weineisen; Benjamin Frisch; Asli Okur; Hubert Kübler; Mark Thalgott; Nassir Navab; Markus Schwaiger; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Jürgen E Gschwend; Matthias Eiber Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-05-06 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Christian M Zechmann; Anna Malcher; Matthias Eder; Michael Eisenhut; Heinz G Linhart; Tim Holland-Letz; Boris A Hadaschik; Frederik L Giesel; Jürgen Debus; Uwe Haberkorn Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-09-27 Impact factor: 9.236
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: 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
Authors: P A Glemser; L T Rotkopf; C H Ziener; B Beuthien-Baumann; V Weru; A Kopp-Schneider; H P Schlemmer; A Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss; C Sachpekidis Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2022-09-22 Impact factor: 5.605