Renal excretion of some prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) ligands and consequently increased bladder activity can obscure locally relapsing prostate cancer lesions in PSMA PET/CT. Furthermore, additional late imaging in PSMA PET/CT provides a useful method to clarify uncertain findings. The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate a modified imaging protocol combining late additional imaging with hydration and forced diuresis in individuals undergoing additional late scanning for uncertain lesions or low prostate-specific antigen. Methods: We compared an older protocol with a newer one. In the old protocol, patients undergoing 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT were examined at 90 min after injection, with 1 L of oral hydration beginning at 30 min after injection and 20 mg of furosemide given intravenously at 1 h after injection, followed by additional late imaging at 2.5 h after injection without further preparation. In the new protocol, a second group received the same procedure as before, with an additional 0.5 L of oral hydration and 10 mg of furosemide intravenously 30 min before the late imaging. We examined 132 patients (76 with the old protocol and 56 with the new one) with respect to urinary bladder activity (SUVmean), prostate cancer lesion uptake (SUVmax), and lesion contrast (ratio of tumor SUVmax to bladder SUVmean for local relapses and ratio of tumor SUVmax to gluteal-muscle SUVmean for nonlocal prostate cancer lesions). Results: Bladder activity was significantly greater for the old protocol in the late scans than for the new protocol (ratio of bladder activity at 2.5 h to bladder activity at 1.5 h, 2.33 ± 1.17 vs. 1.37 ± 0.50, P < 0.0001). Increased tumor SUVmax and contrast were seen at 2.5 h compared with 1.5 h (P < 0.0001 for old protocol; P = 0.02 for new protocol). Increased bladder activity for the old protocol resulted in decreased lesion-to-bladder contrast, which was not the case for the new protocol. Tumor-to-background ratios increased at late imaging for both protocols, but the increase was significantly lower for the new protocol. For the old protocol, comparing the 1.5-h to the 2.5-h acquisitions, 4 lesions in 4 patients (4/76 = 5.2% of the cohort) were visible at the postdiuresis 1.5-h acquisition but not at 2.5 h, having been obscured as a result of the higher bladder activity. In the new protocol, 2 of 56 (3.6%) patients had lesions visible only at late imaging, and 2 patients had lesions that could be better discriminated at late imaging. Conclusion: Although the combination of diuretics and hydration can be a useful method to increase the visualization and detectability of locally recurrent prostate cancer in standard 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT, their effects do not sufficiently continue into additional late imaging. Additional diuresis and hydration are recommended to improve the visibility, detection, and diagnostic certainty of local recurrences.
Renal excretion of some prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) ligands and consequently increased bladder activity can obscure locally relapsing prostate cancer lesions in PSMA PET/CT. Furthermore, additional late imaging in PSMA PET/CT provides a useful method to clarify uncertain findings. The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate a modified imaging protocol combining late additional imaging with hydration and forced diuresis in individuals undergoing additional late scanning for uncertain lesions or low prostate-specific antigen. Methods: We compared an older protocol with a newer one. In the old protocol, patients undergoing 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT were examined at 90 min after injection, with 1 L of oral hydration beginning at 30 min after injection and 20 mg of furosemide given intravenously at 1 h after injection, followed by additional late imaging at 2.5 h after injection without further preparation. In the new protocol, a second group received the same procedure as before, with an additional 0.5 L of oral hydration and 10 mg of furosemide intravenously 30 min before the late imaging. We examined 132 patients (76 with the old protocol and 56 with the new one) with respect to urinary bladder activity (SUVmean), prostate cancer lesion uptake (SUVmax), and lesion contrast (ratio of tumor SUVmax to bladder SUVmean for local relapses and ratio of tumor SUVmax to gluteal-muscle SUVmean for nonlocal prostate cancer lesions). Results: Bladder activity was significantly greater for the old protocol in the late scans than for the new protocol (ratio of bladder activity at 2.5 h to bladder activity at 1.5 h, 2.33 ± 1.17 vs. 1.37 ± 0.50, P < 0.0001). Increased tumor SUVmax and contrast were seen at 2.5 h compared with 1.5 h (P < 0.0001 for old protocol; P = 0.02 for new protocol). Increased bladder activity for the old protocol resulted in decreased lesion-to-bladder contrast, which was not the case for the new protocol. Tumor-to-background ratios increased at late imaging for both protocols, but the increase was significantly lower for the new protocol. For the old protocol, comparing the 1.5-h to the 2.5-h acquisitions, 4 lesions in 4 patients (4/76 = 5.2% of the cohort) were visible at the postdiuresis 1.5-h acquisition but not at 2.5 h, having been obscured as a result of the higher bladder activity. In the new protocol, 2 of 56 (3.6%) patients had lesions visible only at late imaging, and 2 patients had lesions that could be better discriminated at late imaging. Conclusion: Although the combination of diuretics and hydration can be a useful method to increase the visualization and detectability of locally recurrent prostate cancer in standard 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT, their effects do not sufficiently continue into additional late imaging. Additional diuresis and hydration are recommended to improve the visibility, detection, and diagnostic certainty of local recurrences.
Authors: Esther Mena; Steven P Rowe; Joanna H Shih; Liza Lindenberg; Baris Turkbey; Aloyse Fourquet; Frank I Lin; Stephen Adler; Philip Eclarinal; Yolanda L McKinney; Deborah E Citrin; William Dahut; Bradford J Wood; Richard Chang; Elliot Levy; Maria Merino; Michael A Gorin; Martin G Pomper; Peter A Pinto; Janet F Eary; Peter L Choyke; Kenneth J Pienta Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Janna Morawitz; Julian Kirchner; Johannes Hertelendy; Christina Loberg; Lars Schimmöller; Mardjan Dabir; Lena Häberle; Eduards Mamlins; Christina Antke; Christian Arsov; Gerald Antoch; Lino M Sawicki Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2022-03-04 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Maarten L Donswijk; Maurits Wondergem; Linda de Wit-van der Veen; Natascha M Bruin; Pim J van Leeuwen; Henk G van der Poel; Marcel P M Stokkel; Wouter V Vogel Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2022-07-27 Impact factor: 3.434
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: Ian Alberts; Clemens Mingels; Helle D Zacho; Sabine Lanz; Heiko Schöder; Axel Rominger; Marcel Zwahlen; Ali Afshar-Oromieh Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-11-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Daniel Koehler; Markus Sauer; Amir Karimzadeh; Ivayla Apostolova; Susanne Klutmann; Gerhard Adam; Sophie Knipper; Tobias Maurer; Christoph Berliner Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2022-10-09 Impact factor: 3.434
Authors: Clemens Mingels; Karl Peter Bohn; Axel Rominger; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Ian Alberts Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 10.057