Bernard H E Jansen1,2, Robin W Jansen1, Maurits Wondergem3, Sandra Srbljin4, John M H de Klerk5, Birgit I Lissenberg-Witte6, André N Vis2, Reindert J A van Moorselaar2, Ronald Boellaard1, Otto S Hoekstra1, Daniela E Oprea-Lager7. 1. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Noordwest Ziekenhuisgroep, Alkmaar, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Zaans Medisch Centrum, Zaandam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Meander Medisch Centrum, Amersfoort, The Netherlands; and. 6. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands d.oprea-lager@vumc.nl.
Abstract
Biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (BCR) is the main indication to perform prostate-specific membrane antigen PET/CT. However, localizing BCR with prostate-specific membrane antigen PET/CT remains challenging in patients with low prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values. Here, we studied the impact of advanced PET image reconstruction methods on BCR localization and interobserver agreement with 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT scans in patients with BCR and low PSA values. Methods: Twenty-four patients with BCR and a PSA level of less than 2.0 ng/mL were included. PET images were reconstructed with 4-mm voxels and 2-mm voxels, both with and without point-spread function. All scans were interpreted by 4 nuclear medicine physicians. Additionally, PET examinations of 5 patients with primary prostate cancer and confirmed absence of lymph node metastases (after lymph node dissection) were included, to assess the risk of introducing false-positive findings when using advanced reconstruction. Calculation of BCR localization rates (scan positivity) was based on consensus among our readers (≥3 readers regarding a scan positive for BCR), as well as the individual scan interpretations of the readers. Results: In the consensus analysis, BCR localization rates were not higher using advanced reconstruction (62.5%-66.7%) than using 4-mm reconstruction (62.5%). On the basis of individual readings, however, more scans were positive using 2-mm reconstruction (74.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 65.0%-82.9%) (P = 0.027) and 2-mm reconstruction with point-spread function (75.0%; 95% CI, 66.2%-83.8%) (P = 0.014) than 4-mm reconstruction (65.6%; 95% CI, 56.0%-75.3%). A higher number of lesions was detected on the 2-mm scans (median, 2 lesions; interquartile range, 1-3) than the 4-mm scans (median, 1; interquartile range, 0-3; P = 0.008). The advanced reconstruction methods did not increase interobserver agreement (80.6%-84.7%), compared with the 4-mm scans (75.7%, P = 0.08-0.25). In the patients with primary prostate cancer, an equal number of false-positive lesions was observed among the different reconstruction methods (overall, n = 13). Conclusion: Applying advanced image reconstruction for 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT scans did not increase BCR localization in patients with BCR and low PSA values (reader consensus). Yet, the increased number of positive individual readings may imply that further development of image reconstruction methods holds potential to improve BCR localization. No improved interobserver agreement was observed with advanced reconstruction compared with standard 4-mm reconstruction.
Biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (BCR) is the main indication to perform prostate-specific membrane antigen PET/CT. However, localizing BCR with prostate-specific membrane antigen PET/CT remains challenging in patients with low prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values. Here, we studied the impact of advanced PET image reconstruction methods on BCR localization and interobserver agreement with 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT scans in patients with BCR and low PSA values. Methods: Twenty-four patients with BCR and a PSA level of less than 2.0 ng/mL were included. PET images were reconstructed with 4-mm voxels and 2-mm voxels, both with and without point-spread function. All scans were interpreted by 4 nuclear medicine physicians. Additionally, PET examinations of 5 patients with primary prostate cancer and confirmed absence of lymph node metastases (after lymph node dissection) were included, to assess the risk of introducing false-positive findings when using advanced reconstruction. Calculation of BCR localization rates (scan positivity) was based on consensus among our readers (≥3 readers regarding a scan positive for BCR), as well as the individual scan interpretations of the readers. Results: In the consensus analysis, BCR localization rates were not higher using advanced reconstruction (62.5%-66.7%) than using 4-mm reconstruction (62.5%). On the basis of individual readings, however, more scans were positive using 2-mm reconstruction (74.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 65.0%-82.9%) (P = 0.027) and 2-mm reconstruction with point-spread function (75.0%; 95% CI, 66.2%-83.8%) (P = 0.014) than 4-mm reconstruction (65.6%; 95% CI, 56.0%-75.3%). A higher number of lesions was detected on the 2-mm scans (median, 2 lesions; interquartile range, 1-3) than the 4-mm scans (median, 1; interquartile range, 0-3; P = 0.008). The advanced reconstruction methods did not increase interobserver agreement (80.6%-84.7%), compared with the 4-mm scans (75.7%, P = 0.08-0.25). In the patients with primary prostate cancer, an equal number of false-positive lesions was observed among the different reconstruction methods (overall, n = 13). Conclusion: Applying advanced image reconstruction for 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT scans did not increase BCR localization in patients with BCR and low PSA values (reader consensus). Yet, the increased number of positive individual readings may imply that further development of image reconstruction methods holds potential to improve BCR localization. No improved interobserver agreement was observed with advanced reconstruction compared with standard 4-mm reconstruction.
Authors: Bernard H E Jansen; Matthijs C F Cysouw; André N Vis; Reindert J A van Moorselaar; Jens Voortman; Yves J L Bodar; Patrick R Schober; N Harry Hendrikse; Otto S Hoekstra; Ronald Boellaard; D E Oprea-Lager Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-01-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Julian M M Rogasch; Frank Hofheinz; Lutz van Heek; Conrad-Amadeus Voltin; Ronald Boellaard; Carsten Kobe Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-02-10
Authors: Julian M M Rogasch; Ronald Boellaard; Lucy Pike; Peter Borchmann; Peter Johnson; Jürgen Wolf; Sally F Barrington; Carsten Kobe Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-05-14 Impact factor: 9.236