Xing Zhou1,2, YingChun Li3, Xiao Jiang1, XiaoXiong Wang1, ShiRong Chen1, TaiPeng Shen1, JinHui You2, Hao Lu1, Hong Liao4, Zeng Li4, ZhuZhong Cheng1,2. 1. Radiation Oncology Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, PET/CT Centre, Sichuan Cancer Hospital, Chengdu, China. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine & Radiotherapy, Air Force Hospital of Western Theater Command, Chengdu, China. 4. Radiation Oncology Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Department of Urology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital, Chengdu, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: 18F labelled PSMA-1007 presents promising results in detecting prostate cancer (PC), while some pitfalls exists meanwhile. An intra-individual comparison of 18F-FDG and 18F-PSMA-1007 in patients with prostate cancer were aimed to be performed in the present study. Then, the pitfalls of 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT in imaging of patients with prostate cancer were analyzed. METHODS AND MATERIAL: 21 prostate cancer patients underwent 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT as well as 18F-FDG PET/CT before treatment. All positive lesions were noticed in both 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT, then differentiated PC metastasis from benign lesions. the SUVmax, SUVmean and TBR of lesions, up to 10 metastases and 10 benign lesions per patients were recorded (5 for bone, 5 for soft tissue metastasis ). The distribution of positive lesions were analyzed for two imaging. Detection rates, SUVmax, SUVmean and TBR in 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT were compared, respectively. The optimal cut-off values of SUVmax, SUVmean for metastases vs. benign lesions was found through areas under ROC in 18F-PSMA-1007. RESULTS: The detection rates of primary lesions in 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT was higher than that of 18F-FDG PET/CT(100% (21/21) vs. 67%(14/21)). For extra- prostatic lesions, 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT revealed 124 positive lesions, 49(49/124, 40%) attributed to a benign origin; 18F-FDG PET/CT revealed 68 positive lesions, 14(14/68, 21%) attributed to a benign origin. The SUVmax, SUVmean, TBR of primary tumor in 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT was higher than that in 18F-FDG PET/CT (15.20 vs. 4.20 for SUVmax; 8.70 vs. 2.80 for SUVmean; 24.92 vs. 4.82 for TBR, respectively); The SUVmax, SUVmean, TBR of metastases in 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT was higher than that in 18F-FDG PET/CT (10.72 vs. 4.42 for SUVmax; 6.67 vs. 2.59 for SUVmean; The TBR of metastases was 13.3 vs. 7.91). For 18F-FDG PET/CT, the SUVmax, SUVmean in metastases was higher than that in benign lesions (4.42 vs. 3.04 for SUVmax, 2.59 vs. 1.75 for SUVmean, respectively). Similarly, for 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT, the SUVmax, SUVmean in metastases was significantly higher than that in benign lesions(10.72 vs. 3.14 for SUVmax, 6.67 vs. 1.91 for SUVmean, respectively), ROC suggested that SUVmax=7.71, SUVmean=5.35 might be the optimal cut-off values for metastases vs. benign lesions. CONCLUSION: The pilot study suggested that 18F-PSMA-1007 showed superiority over 18F-FDG because its high detecting rate of PC lesions and excellent tumor uptake. While non-tumor uptake in 18F-PSMA-1007 may lead to misdiagnosis, recognizing these pitfalls and careful analysis can improve the accuracy of diagnosis.
PURPOSE: 18F labelled PSMA-1007 presents promising results in detecting prostate cancer (PC), while some pitfalls exists meanwhile. An intra-individual comparison of 18F-FDG and 18F-PSMA-1007 in patients with prostate cancer were aimed to be performed in the present study. Then, the pitfalls of 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT in imaging of patients with prostate cancer were analyzed. METHODS AND MATERIAL: 21 prostate cancer patients underwent 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT as well as 18F-FDG PET/CT before treatment. All positive lesions were noticed in both 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT, then differentiated PC metastasis from benign lesions. the SUVmax, SUVmean and TBR of lesions, up to 10 metastases and 10 benign lesions per patients were recorded (5 for bone, 5 for soft tissue metastasis ). The distribution of positive lesions were analyzed for two imaging. Detection rates, SUVmax, SUVmean and TBR in 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT were compared, respectively. The optimal cut-off values of SUVmax, SUVmean for metastases vs. benign lesions was found through areas under ROC in 18F-PSMA-1007. RESULTS: The detection rates of primary lesions in 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT was higher than that of 18F-FDG PET/CT(100% (21/21) vs. 67%(14/21)). For extra- prostatic lesions, 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT revealed 124 positive lesions, 49(49/124, 40%) attributed to a benign origin; 18F-FDG PET/CT revealed 68 positive lesions, 14(14/68, 21%) attributed to a benign origin. The SUVmax, SUVmean, TBR of primary tumor in 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT was higher than that in 18F-FDG PET/CT (15.20 vs. 4.20 for SUVmax; 8.70 vs. 2.80 for SUVmean; 24.92 vs. 4.82 for TBR, respectively); The SUVmax, SUVmean, TBR of metastases in 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT was higher than that in 18F-FDG PET/CT (10.72 vs. 4.42 for SUVmax; 6.67 vs. 2.59 for SUVmean; The TBR of metastases was 13.3 vs. 7.91). For 18F-FDG PET/CT, the SUVmax, SUVmean in metastases was higher than that in benign lesions (4.42 vs. 3.04 for SUVmax, 2.59 vs. 1.75 for SUVmean, respectively). Similarly, for 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT, the SUVmax, SUVmean in metastases was significantly higher than that in benign lesions(10.72 vs. 3.14 for SUVmax, 6.67 vs. 1.91 for SUVmean, respectively), ROC suggested that SUVmax=7.71, SUVmean=5.35 might be the optimal cut-off values for metastases vs. benign lesions. CONCLUSION: The pilot study suggested that 18F-PSMA-1007 showed superiority over 18F-FDG because its high detecting rate of PC lesions and excellent tumor uptake. While non-tumor uptake in 18F-PSMA-1007 may lead to misdiagnosis, recognizing these pitfalls and careful analysis can improve the accuracy of diagnosis.
Authors: Zhen J Wang; Emily M Webb; Antonio C Westphalen; Fergus V Coakley; Benjamin M Yeh Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2010 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Kambiz Rahbar; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Martin Bögemann; Stefan Wagner; Michael Schäfers; Lars Stegger; Matthias Weckesser Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-03-14 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jens Cardinale; Martin Schäfer; Martina Benešová; Ulrike Bauder-Wüst; Karin Leotta; Matthias Eder; Oliver C Neels; Uwe Haberkorn; Frederik L Giesel; Klaus Kopka Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Wolfgang P Fendler; Dorothea F Schmidt; Vera Wenter; Kolja M Thierfelder; Christian Zach; Christian Stief; Peter Bartenstein; Thomas Kirchner; Franz J Gildehaus; Christian Gratzke; Claudius Faber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Sara Sheikhbahaei; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Matthias Eiber; Lilja B Solnes; Mehrbod S Javadi; Ashley E Ross; Kenneth J Pienta; Mohamad E Allaf; Uwe Haberkorn; Martin G Pomper; Michael A Gorin; Steven P Rowe Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Frederik L Giesel; Karina Knorr; Fabian Spohn; Leon Will; Tobias Maurer; Paul Flechsig; Oliver Neels; Kilian Schiller; Horacio Amaral; Wolfgang A Weber; Uwe Haberkorn; Markus Schwaiger; Clemens Kratochwil; Peter Choyke; Vasko Kramer; Klaus Kopka; Matthias Eiber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-07-24 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Youssra Allach; Amina Banda; Willemijn van Gemert; Michel de Groot; Yvonne Derks; Melline Schilham; Alexander Hoepping; Lars Perk; Martin Gotthardt; Marcel Janssen; James Nagarajah; Bastiaan M Privé Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-04-21 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Manuela A Hoffmann; Jonas Müller-Hübenthal; Florian Rosar; Nicolas Fischer; Finn Edler von Eyben; Hans-Georg Buchholz; Helmut J Wieler; Mathias Schreckenberger Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-08-29 Impact factor: 4.964