Batool Albalooshi1, Mouza Al Sharhan2, Fariborz Bagheri3, Shabna Miyanath1, Bhavna Ray1, Muhammed Muhasin1, Seyed Rasoul Zakavi4. 1. Dubai Nuclear Medicine and Molecular imaging Center-Dubai Health Authority, Dubai, UAE. 2. Department of Genetics and Pathology-Dubai Health Authority, Dubai, UAE. 3. Department of urology-Dubai Health Authority, Dubai, UAE. 4. Nuclear Medicine Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: 99mTc-PSMA SPECT/CT is a cost effective alternative for 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT. The aim of this study was to directly compare these two techniques in patients with prostate cancer. METHODS: 28 man with prostate cancer were studied using 99mTc-PSMA SPECT/CT and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in a short time period (<60 days). No intervention was done between the studies. Whole body PET/CT was done 60 minutes after IV injection of 2 MBq/Kg of 68Ga-PSMA. 99mTc-PSMA kit (PSMA I+S) was used for SPECT/CT and whole body imaging was performed 4 hours after IV injection of 740 MBq of 99mTc-PSMA. Images were interpreted independently and the results of each imaging were recorded. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 64.7±9.6 years old and the mean time difference between two sets of images was 16.6±13.5 days. Abnormal uptake was seen in 25 (89.2%) patients by 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT and 20 (71.4%) patients with 99mTc-PSMA SPECT/CT. No patients with positive 99mTc-PSMA SPECT/CT had negative 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT. The mean number of detected lesions was 26.07±27.5 by 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT and 10.52±10.99 by 99mTc-PSMA SPECT/CT (P<0.001). Detection of lymph nodes and bone metastases were not significantly different between two sets of imaging (P>0.05), however 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT were more successful in detection of prostate bed lesions compared to 99mTc-PSMA scan. Interestingly, no patient with PSA level of >2.1 ng/ml had discordant result between two sets of images. CONCLUSION: 99mTc-PSMA SPECT/CT is as accurate as 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in M staging, however 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT detected more lesions compared to 99mTc-PSMA SPECT/CT. Detection rate was not significantly different between two techniques in patients with PSA levels>2.1 ng/ml.
OBJECTIVES: 99mTc-PSMA SPECT/CT is a cost effective alternative for 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT. The aim of this study was to directly compare these two techniques in patients with prostate cancer. METHODS: 28 man with prostate cancer were studied using 99mTc-PSMA SPECT/CT and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in a short time period (<60 days). No intervention was done between the studies. Whole body PET/CT was done 60 minutes after IV injection of 2 MBq/Kg of 68Ga-PSMA. 99mTc-PSMA kit (PSMA I+S) was used for SPECT/CT and whole body imaging was performed 4 hours after IV injection of 740 MBq of 99mTc-PSMA. Images were interpreted independently and the results of each imaging were recorded. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 64.7±9.6 years old and the mean time difference between two sets of images was 16.6±13.5 days. Abnormal uptake was seen in 25 (89.2%) patients by 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT and 20 (71.4%) patients with 99mTc-PSMA SPECT/CT. No patients with positive 99mTc-PSMA SPECT/CT had negative 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT. The mean number of detected lesions was 26.07±27.5 by 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT and 10.52±10.99 by 99mTc-PSMA SPECT/CT (P<0.001). Detection of lymph nodes and bone metastases were not significantly different between two sets of imaging (P>0.05), however 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT were more successful in detection of prostate bed lesions compared to 99mTc-PSMA scan. Interestingly, no patient with PSA level of >2.1 ng/ml had discordant result between two sets of images. CONCLUSION: 99mTc-PSMA SPECT/CT is as accurate as 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in M staging, however 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT detected more lesions compared to 99mTc-PSMA SPECT/CT. Detection rate was not significantly different between two techniques in patients with PSA levels>2.1 ng/ml.
Authors: Wolfgang P Fendler; Matthias Eiber; Mohsen Beheshti; Jamshed Bomanji; Francesco Ceci; Steven Cho; Frederik Giesel; Uwe Haberkorn; Thomas A Hope; Klaus Kopka; Bernd J Krause; Felix M Mottaghy; Heiko Schöder; John Sunderland; Simon Wan; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Stefano Fanti; Ken Herrmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Hui Sze Wong; John Leung; Dylan Bartholomeusz; Peter Sutherland; Hien Le; Michelle Nottage; Ivan Iankov; Joe H Chang Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-08-28 Impact factor: 1.735
Authors: Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Henrik Hetzheim; Clemens Kratochwil; Martina Benesova; Matthias Eder; Oliver C Neels; Michael Eisenhut; Wolfgang Kübler; Tim Holland-Letz; Frederik L Giesel; Walter Mier; Klaus Kopka; Uwe Haberkorn Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-08-20 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ismaheel O Lawal; Alfred O Ankrah; Neo P Mokgoro; Mariza Vorster; Alex Maes; Mike M Sathekge Journal: Prostate Date: 2017-06-26 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Ali Afshar-Oromieh; John W Babich; Clemens Kratochwil; Frederik L Giesel; Michael Eisenhut; Klaus Kopka; Uwe Haberkorn Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Mohsen Beheshti; Silke Haim; Rasoul Zakavi; Martin Steinmair; Peter Waldenberger; Thomas Kunit; Michael Nader; Werner Langsteger; Wolfgang Loidl Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-04-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Brittany M Stopa; James Crowley; Csaba Juhász; Cara M Rogers; Mark R Witcher; Jackson W Kiser Journal: Mol Imaging Date: 2022-04-15 Impact factor: 3.250