Nika Guberina1,2, P Hetkamp3, H Ruebben4, W Fendler3, J Grueneisen5, S Suntharalingam5, J Kirchner6, L Puellen4, N Harke4, J P Radtke4, L Umutlu5, B A Hadaschik4, K Herrmann3, M Forsting5, A Wetter5. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, 45147, Essen, Germany. nika.guberina@uk-essen.de. 2. Department for Radiotherapy, University Hospital Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, 45147, Essen, Germany. nika.guberina@uk-essen.de. 3. Clinic of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. 4. Department of Urology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. 5. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, 45147, Essen, Germany. 6. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the detection rate of [68Ga]prostate-specific membrane antigen ([68Ga]PSMA-11) positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and to compare it with [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET/X-ray computed tomography (CT) in patients with recurrent prostate cancer (PC) after radical prostatectomy. PROCEDURES: A total of 93 patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer underwent [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET/CT and subsequently a whole-body integrated PET/MRI examination. Board certified nuclear medicine physicians and radiologists evaluated PET/CT and PET/MRI datasets regarding identification of tumor lesions ((i) lymph nodes, (ii) bone lesions, (iii) local recurrence, and (iv) parenchymal lesions) based on maximum [68Ga]PSMA-11 uptake as well as morphological changes. Quality of PET images for both PET/CT and PET/MRI were rated using a 5-point scoring system by evaluating lesion homogeneity, contrast, contour, and delineation. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to determine statistical differences. RESULTS: PC relapse was detected in 62/93 patients. PET/MRI detected 148 out of 150 lesions described in PET/CT. In addition, PET/MRI detected 11 lesions not detected in PET/CT (5 lymph nodes, 6 local recurrences). The exact McNemar statistical test (one-sided) showed significant difference between PET/CT and PET/MRI for diagnosis of local recurrence (p value = 0.031). Diagnostic confidence for (iii) was higher in PET/MRI compared with PET/CT (PET/CT = 1.1; PET/MRI = 4.9). Diagnostic confidence for (i) (PET/CT = 4.9; PET/MRI = 4.6), (ii) (PET/CT = 4.9; PET/MRI = 4.6), and (iv) (PET/CT = 4.6; PET/MRI = 4.8) was equivalent between PET/MRI and PET/CT. CONCLUSIONS: Integrated [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET/MRI provides a similarly high diagnostic performance for localization of recurrent PC as PET/CT. For the detection of local recurrences [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET/MRI is superior compared with [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET/CT.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the detection rate of [68Ga]prostate-specific membrane antigen ([68Ga]PSMA-11) positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and to compare it with [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET/X-ray computed tomography (CT) in patients with recurrent prostate cancer (PC) after radical prostatectomy. PROCEDURES: A total of 93 patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer underwent [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET/CT and subsequently a whole-body integrated PET/MRI examination. Board certified nuclear medicine physicians and radiologists evaluated PET/CT and PET/MRI datasets regarding identification of tumor lesions ((i) lymph nodes, (ii) bone lesions, (iii) local recurrence, and (iv) parenchymal lesions) based on maximum [68Ga]PSMA-11 uptake as well as morphological changes. Quality of PET images for both PET/CT and PET/MRI were rated using a 5-point scoring system by evaluating lesion homogeneity, contrast, contour, and delineation. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to determine statistical differences. RESULTS: PC relapse was detected in 62/93 patients. PET/MRI detected 148 out of 150 lesions described in PET/CT. In addition, PET/MRI detected 11 lesions not detected in PET/CT (5 lymph nodes, 6 local recurrences). The exact McNemar statistical test (one-sided) showed significant difference between PET/CT and PET/MRI for diagnosis of local recurrence (p value = 0.031). Diagnostic confidence for (iii) was higher in PET/MRI compared with PET/CT (PET/CT = 1.1; PET/MRI = 4.9). Diagnostic confidence for (i) (PET/CT = 4.9; PET/MRI = 4.6), (ii) (PET/CT = 4.9; PET/MRI = 4.6), and (iv) (PET/CT = 4.6; PET/MRI = 4.8) was equivalent between PET/MRI and PET/CT. CONCLUSIONS: Integrated [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET/MRI provides a similarly high diagnostic performance for localization of recurrent PC as PET/CT. For the detection of local recurrences [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET/MRI is superior compared with [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET/CT.
Authors: Thorsten Heußer; Philipp Mann; Christopher M Rank; Martin Schäfer; Antonia Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Boris A Hadaschik; Klaus Kopka; Peter Bachert; Marc Kachelrieß; Martin T Freitag Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-08-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Hossein Jadvar; Jeremie Calais; Stefano Fanti; Felix Feng; Kirsten L Greene; James L Gulley; Michael Hofman; Bridget F Koontz; Daniel W Lin; Michael J Morris; Steve P Rowe; Trevor J Royce; Simpa Salami; Bital Savir-Baruch; Sandy Srinivas; Thomas A Hope Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-09-30 Impact factor: 11.082
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
Authors: Constantin Lapa; Ursula Nestle; Nathalie L Albert; Christian Baues; Ambros Beer; Andreas Buck; Volker Budach; Rebecca Bütof; Stephanie E Combs; Thorsten Derlin; Matthias Eiber; Wolfgang P Fendler; Christian Furth; Cihan Gani; Eleni Gkika; Anca-L Grosu; Christoph Henkenberens; Harun Ilhan; Steffen Löck; Simone Marnitz-Schulze; Matthias Miederer; Michael Mix; Nils H Nicolay; Maximilian Niyazi; Christoph Pöttgen; Claus M Rödel; Imke Schatka; Sarah M Schwarzenboeck; Andrei S Todica; Wolfgang Weber; Simone Wegen; Thomas Wiegel; Constantinos Zamboglou; Daniel Zips; Klaus Zöphel; Sebastian Zschaeck; Daniela Thorwarth; Esther G C Troost Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Marco M E Vogel; Sabrina Dewes; Eva K Sage; Michal Devecka; Jürgen E Gschwend; Matthias Eiber; Stephanie E Combs; Kilian Schiller Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-05-01 Impact factor: 4.309