Feng-Yuan Liu1, Ting-Wen Sheng2, Jing-Ren Tseng3, Kai-Jie Yu4, Ke-Hong Tsui4, Se-Tong Pang4, Li-Jen Wang2, Gigin Lin5. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou and Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan. 2. Department of Medical Imaging and Intervention, New Taipei Municipal TuCheng Hospital, Chang Gung Medical Foundation, New Taipei City, Taiwan. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, New Taipei Municipal TuCheng Hospital, Chang Gung Medical Foundation, New Taipei City, Taiwan. 4. Department of Urology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou and Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan. 5. Department of Medical Imaging and Intervention, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou and Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether PET-CT or PET-MRI is more appropriate for imaging prostate cancer, in terms of primary tumor detection, local staging and recurrence, as well as lymph nodes and distant metastases. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted on Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library database. Studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of PET-CT vs PET-MRI in prostate cancer patients were emphasized. RESULTS: We reviewed 57 original research articles during the period 2016-2021: 14 articles regarding the radiotracer PSMA; 18 articles regarding the primary tumor detection, local tumor staging, managing local recurrence; 17 articles for managing lymph node metastases; and eight articles for managing bone and other distant metastases. PSMA PET could be complementary to mpMRI for primary prostate cancer localization and is particularly valuable for PI-RADS three lesions. PET-MRI is better than PET-CT in local tumor staging due to its specific benefit in predicting extracapsular extension in MRI-occult prostate cancer patients. PET-MRI is likely superior as compared with PET-CT in detecting local recurrence, and has slightly higher detection rates than PET-CT in lymph node recurrence. PET-CT and PET-MRI seem to have equivalent performance in detecting distant bony or visceral metastases. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, PET-MRI is suitable for local and regional disease, either primary staging or restaging, whereas PET-CT is valuable for managing distant bony or visceral metastasis. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: We reviewed the emerging applications of PET-MRI and PET-CT in clinical aspects. Readers will gain an objective overview on the strength and shortfalls of PET-MRI or PET-CT in the management of prostate cancer.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether PET-CT or PET-MRI is more appropriate for imaging prostate cancer, in terms of primary tumor detection, local staging and recurrence, as well as lymph nodes and distant metastases. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted on Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library database. Studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of PET-CT vs PET-MRI in prostate cancer patients were emphasized. RESULTS: We reviewed 57 original research articles during the period 2016-2021: 14 articles regarding the radiotracer PSMA; 18 articles regarding the primary tumor detection, local tumor staging, managing local recurrence; 17 articles for managing lymph node metastases; and eight articles for managing bone and other distant metastases. PSMA PET could be complementary to mpMRI for primary prostate cancer localization and is particularly valuable for PI-RADS three lesions. PET-MRI is better than PET-CT in local tumor staging due to its specific benefit in predicting extracapsular extension in MRI-occult prostate cancer patients. PET-MRI is likely superior as compared with PET-CT in detecting local recurrence, and has slightly higher detection rates than PET-CT in lymph node recurrence. PET-CT and PET-MRI seem to have equivalent performance in detecting distant bony or visceral metastases. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, PET-MRI is suitable for local and regional disease, either primary staging or restaging, whereas PET-CT is valuable for managing distant bony or visceral metastasis. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: We reviewed the emerging applications of PET-MRI and PET-CT in clinical aspects. Readers will gain an objective overview on the strength and shortfalls of PET-MRI or PET-CT in the management of prostate cancer.
Authors: Arveen A Kalapara; Tatenda Nzenza; Henry Y C Pan; Zita Ballok; Shakher Ramdave; Richard O'Sullivan; Andrew Ryan; Martin Cherk; Michael S Hofman; Badrinath R Konety; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Damien Bolton; Declan G Murphy; Jeremy P Grummet; Mark Frydenberg Journal: BJU Int Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Samir S Taneja; Geert Villeirs; Inderbir S Gill; Clare Allen; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore; Veeru Kasivisvanathan Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Nika Guberina; P Hetkamp; H Ruebben; W Fendler; J Grueneisen; S Suntharalingam; J Kirchner; L Puellen; N Harke; J P Radtke; L Umutlu; B A Hadaschik; K Herrmann; M Forsting; A Wetter Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Martin T Freitag; Jan P Radtke; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Matthias C Roethke; Boris A Hadaschik; Martin Gleave; David Bonekamp; Klaus Kopka; Matthias Eder; Thorsten Heusser; Marc Kachelriess; Kathrin Wieczorek; Christos Sachpekidis; Paul Flechsig; Frederik Giesel; Markus Hohenfellner; Uwe Haberkorn; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; A Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-12-17 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ali Afshar-Oromieh; John W Babich; Clemens Kratochwil; Frederik L Giesel; Michael Eisenhut; Klaus Kopka; Uwe Haberkorn Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-10 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: Hui Wu; Ting Xu; Xiao Wang; Yong Bo Yu; Zhong Yuan Fan; Dan Xia Li; Lei Luo; Xue Cheng Yang; Wei Jiao; Hai Tao Niu Journal: World J Mens Health Date: 2019-04-03 Impact factor: 5.400
Authors: Jonathan Damjanovic; Jan-Carlo Janssen; Christian Furth; Gerd Diederichs; Thula Walter; Holger Amthauer; Marcus R Makowski Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: Marnix Rasing; Marieke van Son; Marinus Moerland; Bart de Keizer; Frank Wessels; Trudy Jonges; Sandrine van de Pol; Wietse Eppinga; Juus Noteboom; Jan Lagendijk; Jochem van der Voort van Zijp; Max Peters Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 6.639