Esther Mena1, Peter C Black2, Soroush Rais-Bahrami3, Michael Gorin4, Mohamad Allaf4, Peter Choyke5. 1. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, 10 Center Dr, Bldg 10, Room B3B69F, Bethesda, MD, 20892-1088, USA. 2. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 3. Department of Urology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. 4. Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. 5. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, 10 Center Dr, Bldg 10, Room B3B69F, Bethesda, MD, 20892-1088, USA. pchoyke@mail.nih.gov.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer is a common neoplasm but conventional imaging methods such as CT and bone scan are often insensitive. A new class of PET agents have emerged to diagnose and manage prostate cancer. METHODS: The relevant literature on PET imaging agents for prostate cancer was reviewed. RESULTS: This review shows a broad range of PET imaging agents, the most successful of which is prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET. Other agents either lack the sensitivity or specificity of PSMA PET. CONCLUSION: Among the available PET agents for prostate cancer, PSMA PET has emerged as the leader. It is likely to have great impact on the diagnosis, staging and management of prostate cancer patients.
INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer is a common neoplasm but conventional imaging methods such as CT and bone scan are often insensitive. A new class of PET agents have emerged to diagnose and manage prostate cancer. METHODS: The relevant literature on PET imaging agents for prostate cancer was reviewed. RESULTS: This review shows a broad range of PET imaging agents, the most successful of which is prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET. Other agents either lack the sensitivity or specificity of PSMA PET. CONCLUSION: Among the available PET agents for prostate cancer, PSMA PET has emerged as the leader. It is likely to have great impact on the diagnosis, staging and management of prostate cancer patients.
Authors: Jan D Soyka; Marco A Muster; Daniel T Schmid; Burkhardt Seifert; Ulrike Schick; Raymond Miralbell; Sandra Jorcano; Kathrin Zaugg; Hans-Helge Seifert; Patrick Veit-Haibach; Klaus Strobel; Niklaus G Schaefer; Daniela B Husarik; Thomas F Hany Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: J Ferlay; E Steliarova-Foucher; J Lortet-Tieulent; S Rosso; J W W Coebergh; H Comber; D Forman; F Bray Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Arnoldo Piccardo; Francesco Paparo; Riccardo Piccazzo; Riccardo Picazzo; Mehrdad Naseri; Paolo Ricci; Andrea Marziano; Lorenzo Bacigalupo; Ennio Biscaldi; Gian Andrea Rollandi; Filippo Grillo-Ruggieri; Mohsen Farsad Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2014-04-30 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Jean J M C H de la Rosette; Rafael Sanchez Salas; Art Rastinehad; Thomas J Polascik Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-03-02 Impact factor: 4.226