P A Glemser1, L T Rotkopf1,2, C H Ziener1, B Beuthien-Baumann1, V Weru3, A Kopp-Schneider3, H P Schlemmer1, A Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss4, C Sachpekidis5. 1. Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 2. Medical Faculty, Ruprecht-Karls-University Heidelberg, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Department of Biostatistics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Clinical Cooperation Unit Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69210, Heidelberg, Germany. 5. Clinical Cooperation Unit Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69210, Heidelberg, Germany. christos_saxpe@yahoo.gr.
Abstract
AIM: To compare [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET-CT, [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET-MRI and MRI in a cohort of prostate cancer (PCa) patients in biochemical recurrence after initial curative therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-three patients with biochemically recurrent PCa underwent whole-body [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET-CT 1 hour post-injection (p.i.) followed by [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET-MRI 2.5 hours p.i., including a multiparametric MRI pelvic protocol examination. Imaging data analysis consisted of visual (qualitative) evaluation of the PET-CT, PET-MRI and MRI scans, as well as semi-quantitative and quantitative analyses of the PET and MRI data, including calculation of the parameters standardized uptake value (SUV) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) derived from the PCa lesions. Association analysis was performed between imaging and clinical data, including PSA level and Gleason score. The results were considered significant for p-values less than 0.05 (p < 0.05). RESULTS: The hybrid imaging modalities [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET-CT and PET-MRI were positive in more patients than MRI alone. In particular, PET-CT detected lesions suggestive of PCa relapse in 34/53 (64.2%), PET-MRI in 36/53 (67.9%) and MRI in 23/53 patients (43.4%). While no significant differences in lesion detection rate were observed between PET-CT and PET-MRI, the latter was particularly efficient in detection of local recurrences in the prostate bed mainly due to the contribution of the MRI part of the modality. Association analysis revealed a statistically significant increase in the probability of a positive scan with increasing PSA levels for all imaging modalities. Accordingly, there was no significant association between scan positivity rate and Gleason score for any imaging modality. No significant correlation was observed between SUV and ADC values in lymph node metastases. CONCLUSION: [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET-CT and PET-MRI provide equally good detection rates for PCa recurrence, both outperforming stand-alone MRI.
AIM: To compare [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET-CT, [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET-MRI and MRI in a cohort of prostate cancer (PCa) patients in biochemical recurrence after initial curative therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-three patients with biochemically recurrent PCa underwent whole-body [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET-CT 1 hour post-injection (p.i.) followed by [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET-MRI 2.5 hours p.i., including a multiparametric MRI pelvic protocol examination. Imaging data analysis consisted of visual (qualitative) evaluation of the PET-CT, PET-MRI and MRI scans, as well as semi-quantitative and quantitative analyses of the PET and MRI data, including calculation of the parameters standardized uptake value (SUV) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) derived from the PCa lesions. Association analysis was performed between imaging and clinical data, including PSA level and Gleason score. The results were considered significant for p-values less than 0.05 (p < 0.05). RESULTS: The hybrid imaging modalities [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET-CT and PET-MRI were positive in more patients than MRI alone. In particular, PET-CT detected lesions suggestive of PCa relapse in 34/53 (64.2%), PET-MRI in 36/53 (67.9%) and MRI in 23/53 patients (43.4%). While no significant differences in lesion detection rate were observed between PET-CT and PET-MRI, the latter was particularly efficient in detection of local recurrences in the prostate bed mainly due to the contribution of the MRI part of the modality. Association analysis revealed a statistically significant increase in the probability of a positive scan with increasing PSA levels for all imaging modalities. Accordingly, there was no significant association between scan positivity rate and Gleason score for any imaging modality. No significant correlation was observed between SUV and ADC values in lymph node metastases. CONCLUSION: [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET-CT and PET-MRI provide equally good detection rates for PCa recurrence, both outperforming stand-alone MRI.
Authors: Stephen J Freedland; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Leslie A Mangold; Mario Eisenberger; Frederick J Dorey; Patrick C Walsh; Alan W Partin Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-07-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Philip Cornford; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Erik Briers; Thomas Van den Broeck; Marcus G Cumberbatch; Maria De Santis; Stefano Fanti; Nicola Fossati; Giorgio Gandaglia; Silke Gillessen; Nikolaos Grivas; Jeremy Grummet; Ann M Henry; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Thomas B Lam; Michael Lardas; Matthew Liew; Malcolm D Mason; Lisa Moris; Daniela E Oprea-Lager; Henk G van der Poel; Olivier Rouvière; Ivo G Schoots; Derya Tilki; Thomas Wiegel; Peter-Paul M Willemse; Nicolas Mottet Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Philip Cornford; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Erik Briers; Maria De Santis; Tobias Gross; Ann M Henry; Steven Joniau; Thomas B Lam; Malcolm D Mason; Henk G van der Poel; Theo H van der Kwast; Olivier Rouvière; Thomas Wiegel; Nicolas Mottet Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Matthias Eiber; Tobias Maurer; Michael Souvatzoglou; Ambros J Beer; Alexander Ruffani; Bernhard Haller; Frank-Philipp Graner; Hubert Kübler; Uwe Haberkorn; Michael Eisenhut; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Jürgen E Gschwend; Markus Schwaiger Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Nazareno Suardi; Christopher R Porter; Alwyn M Reuther; Jochen Walz; Koichi Kodama; Robert P Gibbons; Roy Correa; Francesco Montorsi; Markus Graefen; Hartwig Huland; Eric A Klein; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Tim Holland-Letz; Frederik L Giesel; Clemens Kratochwil; Walter Mier; Sabine Haufe; Nils Debus; Matthias Eder; Michael Eisenhut; Martin Schäfer; Oliver Neels; Markus Hohenfellner; Klaus Kopka; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Jürgen Debus; Uwe Haberkorn Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jeremie Calais; Francesco Ceci; Matthias Eiber; Thomas A Hope; Michael S Hofman; Christoph Rischpler; Tore Bach-Gansmo; Cristina Nanni; Bital Savir-Baruch; David Elashoff; Tristan Grogan; Magnus Dahlbom; Roger Slavik; Jeannine Gartmann; Kathleen Nguyen; Vincent Lok; Hossein Jadvar; Amar U Kishan; Matthew B Rettig; Robert E Reiter; Wolfgang P Fendler; Johannes Czernin Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2019-07-30 Impact factor: 41.316