Jing Zhao1, Dilyana B Mangarova1,2, Julia Brangsch1, Avan Kader1,3, Bernd Hamm1, Winfried Brenner4, Marcus R Makowski1,5. 1. Institute of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany. 2. Department of Veterinary Medicine, Institute of Veterinary Pathology, Freie Universität Berlin, Robert-von-Ostertag-Str. 15, Building 12, 14163 Berlin, Germany. 3. Department of Biology, Chemistry and Pharmacy, Institute of Biology, Freie Universität Berlin, Königin-Luise-Str. 1-3, 14195 Berlin, Germany. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353 Berlin, Germany. 5. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675 Munich, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the correlation between PSMA uptake and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) PI-RADS of simultaneous [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI regarding PI-RADS version 2.0 and 2.1 respectively and compared the difference between these two versions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a total of forty-six patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer who underwent simultaneous [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI. We classified the lesions regarding PI-RADS version 2.0 and 2.1, peripheral zone (PZ), and transitional zone (TZ), respectively. Based on regions of interest (ROI), standardized uptake values maximum (SUVmax), and corresponding lesion-to-background ratios (LBR) of SUVmax of each category, PI-RADS score 1 to 5, were measured. A comparison between PI-RADS version 2.0 and PI-RADS version 2.1 was performed. RESULTS: A total of 215 focal prostate lesions were analyzed, including two subgroups, 125 TZ and 90 PZ. Data are reported as median and interquartile range (IQR). Regarding PI-RADS version 2.1, TZ SUVmax of each category were 1.5 (0.5, 1.9), 1.9 (0.8, 2.3), 3.3 (2.1, 4.6), 4.2 (3.1, 5.7), 7.3 (5.2, 9.7). PZ SUVmax of each category were 1.0 (0.8, 1.6), 2.5 (1.5, 3.2), 3.3 (1.9, 4.5), 4.3 (3.0, 5.4), 7.4 (5.0, 9.3). Regarding the inter-reader agreement of the overall PI-RADS assessment category, the kappa value was 0.723 for version 2.0 and 0.853 for version 2.1. CONCLUSION: Revisions of PI-RADS version 2.1 results in variations in lesions classification. Lesions with the PI-RADS category of 3, 4, and 5 present relatively higher intraprostatic PSMA uptake, while lesions with the PI-RADS category of 1 and 2 present relatively lower and similar uptake. Version 2.1 has higher inter-reader reproducibility than version 2.0.
PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the correlation between PSMA uptake and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) PI-RADS of simultaneous [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI regarding PI-RADS version 2.0 and 2.1 respectively and compared the difference between these two versions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a total of forty-six patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer who underwent simultaneous [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI. We classified the lesions regarding PI-RADS version 2.0 and 2.1, peripheral zone (PZ), and transitional zone (TZ), respectively. Based on regions of interest (ROI), standardized uptake values maximum (SUVmax), and corresponding lesion-to-background ratios (LBR) of SUVmax of each category, PI-RADS score 1 to 5, were measured. A comparison between PI-RADS version 2.0 and PI-RADS version 2.1 was performed. RESULTS: A total of 215 focal prostate lesions were analyzed, including two subgroups, 125 TZ and 90 PZ. Data are reported as median and interquartile range (IQR). Regarding PI-RADS version 2.1, TZ SUVmax of each category were 1.5 (0.5, 1.9), 1.9 (0.8, 2.3), 3.3 (2.1, 4.6), 4.2 (3.1, 5.7), 7.3 (5.2, 9.7). PZ SUVmax of each category were 1.0 (0.8, 1.6), 2.5 (1.5, 3.2), 3.3 (1.9, 4.5), 4.3 (3.0, 5.4), 7.4 (5.0, 9.3). Regarding the inter-reader agreement of the overall PI-RADS assessment category, the kappa value was 0.723 for version 2.0 and 0.853 for version 2.1. CONCLUSION: Revisions of PI-RADS version 2.1 results in variations in lesions classification. Lesions with the PI-RADS category of 3, 4, and 5 present relatively higher intraprostatic PSMA uptake, while lesions with the PI-RADS category of 1 and 2 present relatively lower and similar uptake. Version 2.1 has higher inter-reader reproducibility than version 2.0.
Authors: J R García Garzón; M de Arcocha Torres; R Delgado-Bolton; F Ceci; S Alvarez Ruiz; J Orcajo Rincón; A P Caresia Aróztegui; M J García Velloso; A M García Vicente Journal: Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol (Engl Ed) Date: 2017-09-21
Authors: Thomas A Hope; Rahul Aggarwal; Bryant Chee; Dora Tao; Kirsten L Greene; Matthew R Cooperberg; Felix Feng; Albert Chang; Charles J Ryan; Eric J Small; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Matthias Eiber; Wolfgang P Fendler; Steven P Rowe; Jeremie Calais; Michael S Hofman; Tobias Maurer; Sarah M Schwarzenboeck; Clemens Kratowchil; Ken Herrmann; Frederik L Giesel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Samuel Borofsky; Arvin K George; Sonia Gaur; Marcelino Bernardo; Matthew D Greer; Francesca V Mertan; Myles Taffel; Vanesa Moreno; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-10-20 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Constantinos Zamboglou; Vanessa Drendel; Cordula A Jilg; Hans C Rischke; Teresa I Beck; Wolfgang Schultze-Seemann; Tobias Krauss; Michael Mix; Florian Schiller; Ulrich Wetterauer; Martin Werner; Mathias Langer; Michael Bock; Philipp T Meyer; Anca L Grosu Journal: Theranostics Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 11.556
Authors: Avan Kader; Jan O Kaufmann; Dilyana B Mangarova; Jana Moeckel; Julia Brangsch; Lisa C Adams; Jing Zhao; Carolin Reimann; Jessica Saatz; Heike Traub; Rebecca Buchholz; Uwe Karst; Bernd Hamm; Marcus R Makowski Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-06-13 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Avan Kader; Julia Brangsch; Jan O Kaufmann; Jing Zhao; Dilyana B Mangarova; Jana Moeckel; Lisa C Adams; Ingolf Sack; Matthias Taupitz; Bernd Hamm; Marcus R Makowski Journal: Biomedicines Date: 2020-12-22
Authors: Thomas S C Ng; Xin Gao; Keyan Salari; Dimitar V Zlatev; Pedram Heidari; Sophia C Kamran Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-07-28 Impact factor: 6.244