Jun Wen1, Yinjie Zhu2, Lianghua Li1, Jianjun Liu3, Yumei Chen4, Ruohua Chen5. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 160 Pujian Road, Shanghai, 200127, China. 2. Department of Urology, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 160 Pujian Road, Shanghai, 200127, China. nuclearj@163.com. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 160 Pujian Road, Shanghai, 200127, China. 15921888559@163.com. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 160 Pujian Road, Shanghai, 200127, China. crh19870405@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT has been widely used in patients with prostate cancer. Due to the limited axial field of view of conventional PET scanners, whole-body dynamic 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT has not been performed. We investigated the time-activity curves (TACs) of prostate cancer pathological lesions and physiologic bladder activity to determine the optimal 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT imaging time by total-body (TB) PET/CT. METHODS: Dynamic TB-PET performed on 11 patients with prostate cancer was analyzed. TACs were obtained by drawing regions of interest in normal organs and pathological lesions (primary prostate lesions and lymph nodes and bone metastases). We evaluated the 68 Ga-PSMA uptake pattern of normal organs, urinary bladder, and pathological lesions. RESULTS: The urinary bladder TAC increased slowly between 180 and 330 s post-injection and then rapidly between 5.5 and 60.0 min post-injection. The pathological lesion uptake increased rapidly during the first 5 min post-injection and then slowly through the remaining 55 min. Six minutes post-injection was the optimal time with the highest pathological lesion SUVmean values still higher than the urinary bladder activity value. However, these prostate lesion, lymph node metastasis, and bone metastasis SUVmean values were one-third, one-half, and one-half the corresponding values 60 min post-injection, suggesting that early imaging might miss low PSMA uptake lesions. A minimum of 35 min post-injection was required for the pathological lesions to have SUVmean values similar to the corresponding values at 60 min post-injection (all P > 0.05), even though the pathological lesion SUVmean values showed a continuous upward trend through the 60 min. CONCLUSIONS: Combining early dynamic 68 Ga-PSMA PET (75-360 s) and conventional static imaging 60 min post-injection could avoid the urinary bladder activity interference to better detect pathological lesions and lesions with relatively low PSMA uptake. The pathological lesion SUVmean values at 35-59 min and 60 min post-injection were similar, so 68 Ga-PSMA PET imaging could also be made at 35-59 min post-injection.
BACKGROUND: 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT has been widely used in patients with prostate cancer. Due to the limited axial field of view of conventional PET scanners, whole-body dynamic 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT has not been performed. We investigated the time-activity curves (TACs) of prostate cancer pathological lesions and physiologic bladder activity to determine the optimal 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT imaging time by total-body (TB) PET/CT. METHODS: Dynamic TB-PET performed on 11 patients with prostate cancer was analyzed. TACs were obtained by drawing regions of interest in normal organs and pathological lesions (primary prostate lesions and lymph nodes and bone metastases). We evaluated the 68 Ga-PSMA uptake pattern of normal organs, urinary bladder, and pathological lesions. RESULTS: The urinary bladder TAC increased slowly between 180 and 330 s post-injection and then rapidly between 5.5 and 60.0 min post-injection. The pathological lesion uptake increased rapidly during the first 5 min post-injection and then slowly through the remaining 55 min. Six minutes post-injection was the optimal time with the highest pathological lesion SUVmean values still higher than the urinary bladder activity value. However, these prostate lesion, lymph node metastasis, and bone metastasis SUVmean values were one-third, one-half, and one-half the corresponding values 60 min post-injection, suggesting that early imaging might miss low PSMA uptake lesions. A minimum of 35 min post-injection was required for the pathological lesions to have SUVmean values similar to the corresponding values at 60 min post-injection (all P > 0.05), even though the pathological lesion SUVmean values showed a continuous upward trend through the 60 min. CONCLUSIONS: Combining early dynamic 68 Ga-PSMA PET (75-360 s) and conventional static imaging 60 min post-injection could avoid the urinary bladder activity interference to better detect pathological lesions and lesions with relatively low PSMA uptake. The pathological lesion SUVmean values at 35-59 min and 60 min post-injection were similar, so 68 Ga-PSMA PET imaging could also be made at 35-59 min post-injection.
Authors: Ramsey D Badawi; Hongcheng Shi; Pengcheng Hu; Shuguang Chen; Tianyi Xu; Patricia M Price; Yu Ding; Benjamin A Spencer; Lorenzo Nardo; Weiping Liu; Jun Bao; Terry Jones; Hongdi Li; Simon R Cherry Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-02-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Marlon Perera; Nathan Papa; Matthew Roberts; Michael Williams; Cristian Udovicich; Ian Vela; Daniel Christidis; Damien Bolton; Michael S Hofman; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Declan G Murphy Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Christian Uprimny; Alexander Stephan Kroiss; Clemens Decristoforo; Josef Fritz; Boris Warwitz; Lorenza Scarpa; Llanos Geraldo Roig; Dorota Kendler; Elisabeth von Guggenberg; Jasmin Bektic; Wolfgang Horninger; Irene Johanna Virgolini Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-11-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Henrik Hetzheim; Wolfgang Kübler; Clemens Kratochwil; Frederik L Giesel; Thomas A Hope; Matthias Eder; Michael Eisenhut; Klaus Kopka; Uwe Haberkorn Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: A Afshar-Oromieh; A Malcher; M Eder; M Eisenhut; H G Linhart; B A Hadaschik; T Holland-Letz; F L Giesel; C Kratochwil; S Haufe; U Haberkorn; C M Zechmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-11-24 Impact factor: 9.236
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
Authors: Nathalie L Albert; Lena Kaiser; Zhicong Li; Adrien Holzgreve; Lena M Unterrainer; Viktoria C Ruf; Stefanie Quach; Laura M Bartos; Bogdana Suchorska; Maximilian Niyazi; Vera Wenter; Jochen Herms; Peter Bartenstein; Joerg-Christian Tonn; Marcus Unterrainer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-10-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Chao Zheng; Daniel Holden; Ming-Qiang Zheng; Richard Pracitto; Kyle C Wilcox; Marcel Lindemann; Zachary Felchner; Li Zhang; Jie Tong; Krista Fowles; Sjoerd J Finnema; Nabeel Nabulsi; Richard E Carson; Yiyun Huang; Zhengxin Cai Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-11-11 Impact factor: 10.057