PURPOSE: Digital PET/CT scanners represent a significant step forward in molecular imaging. We report here the clinical impact of digital PET in PSMA-PET/CT. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 88 consecutive patients who underwent [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT on a digital PET/CT (dPET/CT) scanner for recurrent prostate cancer (PC) were included in a first cohort. In a second step, 88 individuals who underwent an analogue [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT (aPET/CT) were selected after they were matched to the first cohort for clinical parameters. Following consensus read by two nuclear medicine physicians, the number and type of PC lesions as well as benign, PSMA-positive lesions were recorded. The results were complemented by extensive [68Ga]Ga phantom measurements to determine imaging characteristics of both scanners. RESULTS: dPET/CT revealed a greater number of PC lesions compared to aPET/CT (326 versus 142) as well as a proportional increase in benign causes of tracer-uptake (144 versus 65). A greater number of scans were noted as pathological for PC on dPET/CT (74/88) compared to aPET/CT (64/88, p < 0.05). The PSMA positivity rate for PC was significantly higher in dPET/CT for the lowest PSA values (PSA < 2.0 ng/ml, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: dPET/CT detected more PC lesions compared to aPET/CT. A significantly higher rate of pathological PET/CTs was noted in the group with the lowest PSA values. A higher number of benign PSMA-positive lesions were also noted in dPET/CT. The differences could be plausibly explained by the measured imaging characteristics of the scanners.
PURPOSE: Digital PET/CT scanners represent a significant step forward in molecular imaging. We report here the clinical impact of digital PET in PSMA-PET/CT. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 88 consecutive patients who underwent [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT on a digital PET/CT (dPET/CT) scanner for recurrent prostate cancer (PC) were included in a first cohort. In a second step, 88 individuals who underwent an analogue [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT (aPET/CT) were selected after they were matched to the first cohort for clinical parameters. Following consensus read by two nuclear medicine physicians, the number and type of PC lesions as well as benign, PSMA-positive lesions were recorded. The results were complemented by extensive [68Ga]Ga phantom measurements to determine imaging characteristics of both scanners. RESULTS: dPET/CT revealed a greater number of PC lesions compared to aPET/CT (326 versus 142) as well as a proportional increase in benign causes of tracer-uptake (144 versus 65). A greater number of scans were noted as pathological for PC on dPET/CT (74/88) compared to aPET/CT (64/88, p < 0.05). The PSMA positivity rate for PC was significantly higher in dPET/CT for the lowest PSA values (PSA < 2.0 ng/ml, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: dPET/CT detected more PC lesions compared to aPET/CT. A significantly higher rate of pathological PET/CTs was noted in the group with the lowest PSA values. A higher number of benign PSMA-positive lesions were also noted in dPET/CT. The differences could be plausibly explained by the measured imaging characteristics of the scanners.
Authors: Diego Alfonso López-Mora; Albert Flotats; Francisco Fuentes-Ocampo; Valle Camacho; Alejandro Fernández; Agustí Ruiz; Joan Duch; Marina Sizova; Anna Domènech; Montserrat Estorch; Ignasi Carrió Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-01-10 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Francisco Fuentes-Ocampo; Diego Alfonso López-Mora; Albert Flotats; Gabriela Paillahueque; Valle Camacho; Joan Duch; Alejandro Fernández; Anna Domènech; Montserrat Estorch; Ignasi Carrió Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Matthias Eiber; Tobias Maurer; Michael Souvatzoglou; Ambros J Beer; Alexander Ruffani; Bernhard Haller; Frank-Philipp Graner; Hubert Kübler; Uwe Haberkorn; Michael Eisenhut; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Jürgen E Gschwend; Markus Schwaiger Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Christoph Rischpler; Teresa I Beck; Shozo Okamoto; Anna M Schlitter; Karina Knorr; Markus Schwaiger; Jürgen Gschwend; Tobias Maurer; Philipp T Meyer; Matthias Eiber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-01-25 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Joyce van Sluis; Ronald Boellaard; Rudi A J O Dierckx; Gilles N Stormezand; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Walter Noordzij Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-10-18 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Isabel Rauscher; Markus Krönke; Michael König; Andrei Gafita; Tobias Maurer; Thomas Horn; Kilian Schiller; Wolfgang Weber; Matthias Eiber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-06-28 Impact factor: 11.082
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: Alec Paschalis; Beshara Sheehan; Ruth Riisnaes; Daniel Nava Rodrigues; Bora Gurel; Claudia Bertan; Ana Ferreira; Maryou B K Lambros; George Seed; Wei Yuan; David Dolling; Jon C Welti; Antje Neeb; Semini Sumanasuriya; Pasquale Rescigno; Diletta Bianchini; Nina Tunariu; Suzanne Carreira; Adam Sharp; Wim Oyen; Johann S de Bono Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2019-07-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ian 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: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: David Kersting; Walter Jentzen; Miriam Sraieb; Pedro Fragoso Costa; Maurizio Conti; Lale Umutlu; Gerald Antoch; Michael Nader; Ken Herrmann; Wolfgang Peter Fendler; Christoph Rischpler; Manuel Weber Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2021-02-15
Authors: Ian Alberts; Christos Sachpekidis; George Prenosil; Marco Viscione; Karl Peter Bohn; Clemens Mingels; Kuangyu Shi; Ali Ashar-Oromieh; Axel Rominger Journal: Ann Nucl Med Date: 2021-02-07 Impact factor: 2.668
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
Authors: George A Prenosil; Michael Hentschel; Thilo Weitzel; Hasan Sari; Kuangyu Shi; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Axel Rominger Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2022-04-08
Authors: Song Xue; Rui Guo; Karl Peter Bohn; Jared Matzke; Marco Viscione; Ian Alberts; Hongping Meng; Chenwei Sun; Miao Zhang; Min Zhang; Raphael Sznitman; Georges El Fakhri; Axel Rominger; Biao Li; Kuangyu Shi Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-12-24 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ian Alberts; Jan-Niklas Hünermund; George Prenosil; Clemens Mingels; Karl Peter Bohn; Marco Viscione; Hasan Sari; Bernd Vollnberg; Kuangyu Shi; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Axel Rominger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-04-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ian Alberts; Jan-Niklas Hünermund; Christos Sachpekidis; Clemens Mingels; Viktor Fech; Karl Peter Bohn; Axel Rominger; Ali Afshar-Oromieh Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-04-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Hannes Grünig; Alexander Maurer; Yannick Thali; Zsofia Kovacs; Klaus Strobel; Irene A Burger; Joachim Müller Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-06-13 Impact factor: 9.236