Pitfalls of FDG-PET in the prostate for the surgical oncologist.
Incidental findings
Positron-emission tomography
Prostatic neoplasms
Transurethral resection of prostate
Journal
Urology case reports
ISSN: 2214-4420
Titre abrégé: Urol Case Rep
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101626357
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2020
Nov 2020
Historique:
received:
10
05
2020
accepted:
18
05
2020
entrez:
4
6
2020
pubmed:
4
6
2020
medline:
4
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A 78-year-old man was referred for investigation of prostate cancer following incidental uptake on 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET). Despite normal PSA and benign digital rectal exam, he was referred for consideration of trans-perineal biopsy to exclude prostate cancer. It was only on review of imaging that it became clearly apparent that the 18F-FDG uptake was due to urinary tracer pooling in a trans-urethral resection cavity. Surgeons, oncologists and nuclear medicine physicians should be aware of this common pitfall in interpretation of 18F-FDG-PET in the prostate.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32489895
doi: 10.1016/j.eucr.2020.101262
pii: S2214-4420(20)30150-9
pii: 101262
pmc: PMC7262006
doi:
Types de publication
Case Reports
Langues
eng
Pagination
101262Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Author(s).
Références
Korean J Urol. 2015 Apr;56(4):288-94
pubmed: 25874042
Acad Radiol. 2014 Feb;21(2):232-49
pubmed: 24439337
Nuklearmedizin. 2014;53(6):249-58
pubmed: 25170975
Can Assoc Radiol J. 2018 Feb;69(1):63-70
pubmed: 29458956
BJU Int. 2006 May;97(5):923-31
pubmed: 16643472