Bone scan
Neoplasm staging
Positron-emission tomography
Prostate-specific antigen
Prostatic neoplasms
Journal
Asian journal of urology
ISSN: 2214-3882
Titre abrégé: Asian J Urol
Pays: Singapore
ID NLM: 101699720
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2021
Apr 2021
Historique:
received:
10
04
2019
revised:
18
09
2019
accepted:
04
12
2019
entrez:
17
5
2021
pubmed:
18
5
2021
medline:
18
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the use of Gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography ( We conducted a review of our prospectively maintained, institutional database to identify 384 patients with post-prostatectomy biochemical failure/recurrence who underwent PSMA PET/CT, CTAP and BS from February 2015 to August 2017 in Nepean Hospital, tertiary referral centre. The results of the three imaging modalities were analysed for their ability to detect local recurrence and distant metastases. PSMA PET/CT and CTAP imaging were separately performed on the same day and the BS was performed within several days (mostly in 24 h). Difference in detection rates was determined between the modalities and the Chi square test was used to determine significance. A total of 384 patients were identified with a median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 0.465 ng/mL (interquartile range =0.19-2.00 ng/mL). Overall, PSMA PET/CT was positive for 245 (63.8%) patients whereas CTAP and BS were positive in 174 patients (45.3%). A total of 98 patients (25.5%) had local or distant metastasis detected on PSMA only, while 20 patients (5.2%) had recurrences detected on CTAP but not on PSMA PET/CT. The use of PSMA PET/CT has a higher detection rate of predicted local or distant metastasis compared to CTAP and BS in the staging of patients with biochemical recurrences after radical prostatectomy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33996472
doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2020.02.001
pii: S2214-3882(20)30004-7
pmc: PMC8099644
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
170-175Informations de copyright
© 2021 Editorial Office of Asian Journal of Urology. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
BJU Int. 2016 Oct;118 Suppl 3:49-55
pubmed: 27659411
BJU Int. 2018 Nov;122(5):783-793
pubmed: 29726071
J Urol. 2016 May;195(5):1436-1443
pubmed: 26682756
Urol Clin North Am. 2001 Aug;28(3):555-65
pubmed: 11590814
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016 Nov;43(12):2114-2121
pubmed: 27290607
World J Urol. 2019 Jul;37(7):1255-1261
pubmed: 30374609
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012 Jun;39(6):1085-6
pubmed: 22310854
J Urol. 1999 Oct;162(4):1322-8
pubmed: 10492189
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018 Jan;45(1):4-11
pubmed: 28894899
Bioconjug Chem. 2012 Apr 18;23(4):688-97
pubmed: 22369515
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015 Feb;42(2):197-209
pubmed: 25411132
J Nucl Med. 2018 Feb;59(2):230-237
pubmed: 29123013
BJU Int. 2017 Feb;119(2):194-195
pubmed: 28090758
Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):618-629
pubmed: 27568654
Br J Radiol. 1997 Oct;70(838):995-9
pubmed: 9404201
Rev Urol. 2004 Summer;6(3):101-13
pubmed: 16985590
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013 Apr;40(4):486-95
pubmed: 23179945
J Nucl Med. 2017 Dec;58(12):1972-1976
pubmed: 28747524
Urology. 2003 Mar;61(3):607-11
pubmed: 12639656