Manuel Weber1, Walter Jentzen2, Regina Hofferber2, Ken Herrmann2, Wolfgang Peter Fendler2, Maurizio Conti3, Axel Wetter4, David Kersting2, Christoph Rischpler2, Pedro Fragoso Costa2. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK)-University Hospital Essen, Hufelandstrasse 55, 45122, Essen, Germany. manuel.weber@uk-essen.de. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK)-University Hospital Essen, Hufelandstrasse 55, 45122, Essen, Germany. 3. Siemens Medical Solutions USA, INC, Knoxville, TN, USA. 4. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Abstract
AIM: [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT allows for a superior detection of prostate cancer tissue, especially in the context of a low tumor burden. Digital PET/CT bears the potential of reducing scan time duration/administered tracer activity due to, for instance, its higher sensitivity and improved time coincidence resolution. It might thereby expand [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT that is currently limited by 68Ge/68Ga-generator yield. Our aim was to clinically evaluate the influence of a reduced scan time duration in combination with different image reconstruction algorithms on the diagnostic performance. METHODS: Twenty prostate cancer patients (11 for biochemical recurrence, 5 for initial staging, 4 for metastatic disease) sequentially underwent [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT on a digital Siemens Biograph Vision. PET data were collected in continuous-bed-motion mode with a mean scan time duration of 16.7 min (reference acquisition protocol) and 4.6 min (reduced acquisition protocol). Four iterative reconstruction algorithms were applied using a time-of-flight (TOF) approach alone or combined with point-spread-function (PSF) correction, each with 2 or 4 iterations. To evaluate the diagnostic performance, the following metrics were chosen: (a) per-region detectability, (b) the tumor maximum and peak standardized uptake values (SUVmax and SUVpeak), and (c) image noise using the liver's activity distribution. RESULTS: Overall, 98% of regions (91% of affected regions) were correctly classified in the reduced acquisition protocol independent of the image reconstruction algorithm. Two nodal lesions (each ≤ 4 mm) were not identified (leading to downstaging in 1/20 cases). Mean absolute percentage deviation of SUVmax (SUVpeak) was approximately 9% (6%) for each reconstruction algorithm. The mean image noise increased from 13 to 21% (4 iterations) and from 10 to 15% (2 iterations) for PSF + TOF and TOF images. CONCLUSIONS: High agreement at 3.5-fold reduction of scan time in terms of per-region detection (98% of regions) and image quantification (mean deviation ≤ 10%) was demonstrated; however, small lesions can be missed in about 10% of patients leading to downstaging (T1N0M0 instead of T1N1M0) in 5% of patients. Our results suggest that a reduction of scan time duration or administered [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 activities can be considered in metastatic patients, where missing small lesions would not impact patient management. Limitations include the small and heterogeneous sample size and the lack of follow-up.
AIM: [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT allows for a superior detection of prostate cancer tissue, especially in the context of a low tumor burden. Digital PET/CT bears the potential of reducing scan time duration/administered tracer activity due to, for instance, its higher sensitivity and improved time coincidence resolution. It might thereby expand [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT that is currently limited by 68Ge/68Ga-generator yield. Our aim was to clinically evaluate the influence of a reduced scan time duration in combination with different image reconstruction algorithms on the diagnostic performance. METHODS: Twenty prostate cancerpatients (11 for biochemical recurrence, 5 for initial staging, 4 for metastatic disease) sequentially underwent [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT on a digital Siemens Biograph Vision. PET data were collected in continuous-bed-motion mode with a mean scan time duration of 16.7 min (reference acquisition protocol) and 4.6 min (reduced acquisition protocol). Four iterative reconstruction algorithms were applied using a time-of-flight (TOF) approach alone or combined with point-spread-function (PSF) correction, each with 2 or 4 iterations. To evaluate the diagnostic performance, the following metrics were chosen: (a) per-region detectability, (b) the tumor maximum and peak standardized uptake values (SUVmax and SUVpeak), and (c) image noise using the liver's activity distribution. RESULTS: Overall, 98% of regions (91% of affected regions) were correctly classified in the reduced acquisition protocol independent of the image reconstruction algorithm. Two nodal lesions (each ≤ 4 mm) were not identified (leading to downstaging in 1/20 cases). Mean absolute percentage deviation of SUVmax (SUVpeak) was approximately 9% (6%) for each reconstruction algorithm. The mean image noise increased from 13 to 21% (4 iterations) and from 10 to 15% (2 iterations) for PSF + TOF and TOF images. CONCLUSIONS: High agreement at 3.5-fold reduction of scan time in terms of per-region detection (98% of regions) and image quantification (mean deviation ≤ 10%) was demonstrated; however, small lesions can be missed in about 10% of patients leading to downstaging (T1N0M0 instead of T1N1M0) in 5% of patients. Our results suggest that a reduction of scan time duration or administered [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 activities can be considered in metastatic patients, where missing small lesions would not impact patient management. Limitations include the small and heterogeneous sample size and the lack of follow-up.
Authors: Wolfgang Peter Fendler; Jeremie Calais; Martin Allen-Auerbach; Christina Bluemel; Nina Eberhardt; Louise Emmett; Pawan Gupta; Markus Hartenbach; Thomas A Hope; Shozo Okamoto; Christian Helmut Pfob; Thorsten D Pöppel; Christoph Rischpler; Sarah Schwarzenböck; Vanessa Stebner; Marcus Unterrainer; Helle D Zacho; Tobias Maurer; Christian Gratzke; Alexander Crispin; Johannes Czernin; Ken Herrmann; Matthias Eiber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Thomas A Hope; Jeremy Z Goodman; Isabel E Allen; Jeremie Calais; Wolfgang P Fendler; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Matthias Eiber; Ken Herrmann; Jeremie Calais; Boris Hadaschik; Frederik L Giesel; Markus Hartenbach; Thomas Hope; Robert Reiter; Tobias Maurer; Wolfgang A Weber; Wolfgang P Fendler Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Joyce van Sluis; Ronald Boellaard; Ananthi Somasundaram; Paul van Snick; Ronald Borra; Rudi Dierckx; Gilles Stormezand; Andor Glaudemans; Walter Noordzij Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-06-28 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Christoph Rischpler; Teresa I Beck; Shozo Okamoto; Anna M Schlitter; Karina Knorr; Markus Schwaiger; Jürgen Gschwend; Tobias Maurer; Philipp T Meyer; Matthias Eiber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-01-25 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Joyce van Sluis; Ronald Boellaard; Rudi A J O Dierckx; Gilles N Stormezand; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Walter Noordzij Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-10-18 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Isabel Rauscher; Tobias Maurer; Wolfgang P Fendler; Wieland H Sommer; Markus Schwaiger; Matthias Eiber Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: David Kersting; Stephan Settelmeier; Ilektra-Antonia Mavroeidi; Ken Herrmann; Robert Seifert; Christoph Rischpler Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-03-30 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Pedro Fragoso Costa; Walter Jentzen; Alissa Brahmer; Ilektra-Antonia Mavroeidi; Fadi Zarrad; Lale Umutlu; Wolfgang P Fendler; Christoph Rischpler; Ken Herrmann; Maurizio Conti; Robert Seifert; Miriam Sraieb; Manuel Weber; David Kersting Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-08-18 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Nicolas Aide; Charline Lasnon; Adam Kesner; Craig S Levin; Irene Buvat; Andrei Iagaru; Ken Hermann; Ramsey D Badawi; Simon R Cherry; Kevin M Bradley; Daniel R McGowan Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-06-03 Impact factor: 9.236