Yiping Shi1, Lian Xu1, Yinjie Zhu2, Yining Wang1, Ruohua Chen1, Jianjun Liu1. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. 2. Department of Urology, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Differentiating lymph node metastases (LNM) from peripheral ganglia by physiological prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) uptake is challenging. Two tracers (68Ga-PSMA-11 and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose [FDG]) metabolic uptake patterns were evaluated by positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT), searching for differences that could tell ganglia from LNM. METHODS: Dual 68Ga-PSMA-11 and 18F-FDG PET-CT data of 138 prostate cancer patients acquired from June 2018 to December 2019 were retrospectively evaluated. Ganglia and LNM with PSMA-11 uptake above local background were analyzed by the location and PSMA-11-PET and FDG-PET maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax). RESULTS: PSMA-11-positive ganglia (n = 381) and LNM (n = 83) were identified in 138 and 58 patients, respectively. The LNM SUVmax of PSMA-11-PET (16.4 ± 14.8 vs 2.3 ± 0.7, P < 0.001) and FDG-PET (3.3 ± 3.2 vs 1.5 ± 0.5, P < 0.001) were higher than in ganglia. The probabilities of being an LNM in the low-potential (PSMA-11-PET SUVmax of <4.1 and FDG-PET SUVmax of <2.05), moderate-potential (PSMA-11-PET SUVmax of >4.1 and FDG-PET SUVmax of <2.05, or PSMA-11-PET SUVmax of <4.1 and FDG-PET SUVmax of >2.05), and high-potential (PSMA-11-PET SUVmax of >4.1 and FDG-PET SUVmax of >2.05) groups were 0.9% (3/334), 44.6% (37/83), and 91.5% (43/47), respectively (P < 0.001). The cervical and coeliac ganglia had higher PSMA-11 and FDG uptake than the sacral ganglia (P < 0.001 for all). LNM PSMA-11 and FDG uptake was similar in these three locations. CONCLUSION: The FDG-PET and PSMA-11-PET SUVmax, especially when combined, could well differentiate LNM from ganglia. The tracers uptake differed between cervical/coeliac and sacral ganglia, so the lesion location should be considered during image assessment.
PURPOSE: Differentiating lymph node metastases (LNM) from peripheral ganglia by physiological prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) uptake is challenging. Two tracers (68Ga-PSMA-11 and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose [FDG]) metabolic uptake patterns were evaluated by positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT), searching for differences that could tell ganglia from LNM. METHODS: Dual 68Ga-PSMA-11 and 18F-FDG PET-CT data of 138 prostate cancer patients acquired from June 2018 to December 2019 were retrospectively evaluated. Ganglia and LNM with PSMA-11 uptake above local background were analyzed by the location and PSMA-11-PET and FDG-PET maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax). RESULTS: PSMA-11-positive ganglia (n = 381) and LNM (n = 83) were identified in 138 and 58 patients, respectively. The LNM SUVmax of PSMA-11-PET (16.4 ± 14.8 vs 2.3 ± 0.7, P < 0.001) and FDG-PET (3.3 ± 3.2 vs 1.5 ± 0.5, P < 0.001) were higher than in ganglia. The probabilities of being an LNM in the low-potential (PSMA-11-PET SUVmax of <4.1 and FDG-PET SUVmax of <2.05), moderate-potential (PSMA-11-PET SUVmax of >4.1 and FDG-PET SUVmax of <2.05, or PSMA-11-PET SUVmax of <4.1 and FDG-PET SUVmax of >2.05), and high-potential (PSMA-11-PET SUVmax of >4.1 and FDG-PET SUVmax of >2.05) groups were 0.9% (3/334), 44.6% (37/83), and 91.5% (43/47), respectively (P < 0.001). The cervical and coeliac ganglia had higher PSMA-11 and FDG uptake than the sacral ganglia (P < 0.001 for all). LNM PSMA-11 and FDG uptake was similar in these three locations. CONCLUSION: The FDG-PET and PSMA-11-PET SUVmax, especially when combined, could well differentiate LNM from ganglia. The tracers uptake differed between cervical/coeliac and sacral ganglia, so the lesion location should be considered during image assessment.
Authors: Stephen A Boorjian; James A Eastham; Markus Graefen; Bertrand Guillonneau; R Jeffrey Karnes; Judd W Moul; Edward M Schaeffer; Christian Stief; Kevin C Zorn Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Paola M Perez; Thomas A Hope; Spencer C Behr; Annemieke van Zante; Eric J Small; Robert R Flavell Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Chiara Pozzessere; Maria Bassanelli; Anna Ceribelli; Sazan Rasul; Shuren Li; John O Prior; Francesco Cicone Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2019-10-11 Impact factor: 3.092
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: Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Christian M Zechmann; Anna Malcher; Matthias Eder; Michael Eisenhut; Heinz G Linhart; Tim Holland-Letz; Boris A Hadaschik; Frederik L Giesel; Jürgen Debus; Uwe Haberkorn Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-09-27 Impact factor: 9.236