ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: This work aims to present a nuclear medicine imaging service's data regarding applying positron emission-computing tomography (PET/CT) scans with the radiopharmaceutical 68Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC (68Ga-PSMA-11) to diagnose prostate cancer clinical relapse. METHODS: Eighty patients with a mean age of 68.26 years and an average prostatic-specific antigen blood level of 7.49 ng/ml (lower concentration = 0.17 ng/ml) received 68Ga-PSMA-11 intravenously, and full-body images of PET-CT scan were obtained. Of the total of patients admitted to the imaging service, 87.5% were examined for disease's biochemical recurrence and clinical relapse, and 70.0% had a previous radical prostatectomy (RP). RESULTS: Of the patients without RP, 95.8% were detected with intra-glandular disease. The 68Ga- PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging results revealed small lesions, even in patients with low blood levels of prostatic-specific antigen, mainly in metastatic cancer cases in lymph nodes and bones. CONCLUSION: The 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging was essential in detecting prostate cancer, with significantly high sensitivity in detecting recurrent cases. Due to its inherent reliability and sensitivity, PET/CT scanning with 68Ga-PSMA-11 received an increasing number of medical requests throughout the present follow-up study, confirming the augmented demand for this clinical imaging procedure in the regional medical community.
Subject(s)
Gallium Radioisotopes , Prostatic Neoplasms , Aged , Follow-Up Studies , Gallium Isotopes , Humans , Male , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/diagnostic imaging , Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography/methods , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Radiopharmaceuticals , Reproducibility of ResultsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: A series of pneumonia cases with clinical presentations of viral pneumonia secondary to new coronavirus and subsequent global transmission arose in Wuhan, Hubei, China, in December 2019. Several cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been described incidentally in positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT) with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) as a result of the pandemic. Herein, we describe the findings of a patient with unknown COVID-19 in PET/CT with the other radiopharmaceutical, 68Ga-labeled prostatespecific membrane antigen (68Ga-PSMA). CASE REPORT: A 69-year-old man had previously undergone radical prostatectomy for adenocarcinoma. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT imaging was performed due to biochemical recurrence. 68Ga-PSMA uptake in the prostate bed suggestive of local recurrence was detected in PET/CT images. Also, bilateral groundglass opacities with slightly increased 68Ga-PSMA uptake were seen in the lungs, suspected of COVID-19. A reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction test has confirmed the infection. CONCLUSION: Even in asymptomatic patients, nuclear medicine departments must be aware of the possibility of COVID-19, take appropriate post-exposure procedures, and protect employees and other patients.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Prostatic Neoplasms , Male , Humans , Aged , Gallium Radioisotopes , Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography/methods , COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/diagnostic imaging , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathologyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Given the inconvenience and financial burden of frequent ovarian cancer surveillance and the risks of in-person visits due to COVID-19, which have led to the acceleration of telehealth adaptation, we sought to assess the role of in-person physical examination for the detection of ovarian cancer recurrence among patients enrolled in a routine surveillance program. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients initially seen from January 2015 to December 2017 who experienced ovarian cancer recurrence during first clinical remission. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were performed to compare differences in detection methods and in patient and disease characteristics. RESULTS: Among 147 patients who met our inclusion criteria, there were no recurrences detected by physical examination alone. Forty-six (31%) patients had recurrence first detected by tumor marker, 81 (55%) by radiographic scan, 17 (12%) by presentation of new symptoms, and 3 (2%) by biopsies taken during non-oncological surgery. One hundred and eleven patients (75%) had multiple positive findings at the time of recurrence. Of all 147 patients, 48 (33%) had symptoms, 21 (14%) had physical examination findings, 106 (72%) had increases in tumor markers, and 141 (96%) had changes on imaging. CONCLUSIONS: In-person physical examination was not a primary means of detection for ovarian cancer recurrence for any patient. Substituting in-person visits for virtual visits that include patient-reported symptoms, alongside a regular surveillance protocol that includes tumor marker testing and imaging, may be a suitable approach for the detection of ovarian cancer recurrence while also reducing patient inconvenience and risks to health.