ABSTRACT
This study aims to evaluate non-invasive PET quantification methods for (R)-[11C]PK11195 uptake measurement in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients and healthy controls (HC) in comparison with arterial input function (AIF) using dynamic (R)-[11C]PK11195 PET and magnetic resonance images. The total volume of distribution (VT) and distribution volume ratio (DVR) were measured in the gray matter, white matter, caudate nucleus, putamen, pallidum, thalamus, cerebellum, and brainstem using AIF, the image-derived input function (IDIF) from the carotid arteries, and pseudo-reference regions from supervised clustering analysis (SVCA). Uptake differences between MS and HC groups were tested using statistical tests adjusted for age and sex, and correlations between the results from the different quantification methods were also analyzed. Significant DVR differences were observed in the gray matter, white matter, putamen, pallidum, thalamus, and brainstem of MS patients when compared to the HC group. Also, strong correlations were found in DVR values between non-invasive methods and AIF (0.928 for IDIF and 0.975 for SVCA, p < 0.0001). On the other hand, (R)-[11C]PK11195 uptake could not be differentiated between MS patients and HC using VT values, and a weak correlation (0.356, p < 0.0001) was found between VTAIF and VTIDIF. Our study shows that the best alternative for AIF is using SVCA for reference region modeling, in addition to a cautious and appropriate methodology.
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Introduction: Prostate cancer (PC) is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in males. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT, a non-invasive diagnostic tool to evaluate PC with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) expression, has emerged as a more accurate alternative to assess disease staging. We aimed to identify predictors of positive 68Ga-PSMA PET and the accuracy of this technique. Materials and methods: Diagnostic accuracy cross-sectional study with prospective and retrospective approaches. We performed a comprehensive literature search on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase database in search of studies including PC patients submitted to radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy with curative intent and presented biochemical recurrence following ASTRO 1996 criteria. A total of 35 studies involving 3910 patients submitted to 68-Ga-PSMA PET were included and independently assessed by two authors: 8 studies on diagnosis, four on staging, and 23 studies on restaging purposes. The significance level was α=0.05. Results: pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.90 (0.86-0.93) and 0.90 (0.82-0.96), respectively, for diagnostic purposes; as for staging, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.93 (0.86-0.98) and 0.96 (0.92-0.99), respectively. In the restaging scenario, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.76 (0.74-0.78) and 0.45 (0.27-0.58), respectively, considering the identification of prostate cancer in each described situation. We also obtained specificity and sensitivity results for PSA subdivisions. Conclusion: 68Ga-PSMA PET provides higher sensitivity and specificity than traditional imaging for prostate cancer.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Cross-Sectional Studies , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , Radiopharmaceuticals , Positron-Emission TomographyABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer (PC) is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in males. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT, a non-invasive diagnostic tool to evaluate PC with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) expression, has emerged as a more accurate alternative to assess disease staging. We aimed to identify predictors of positive 68Ga-PSMA PET and the accuracy of this technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Diagnostic accuracy cross-sectional study with prospective and retrospective approaches. We performed a comprehensive literature search on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase database in search of studies including PC patients submitted to radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy with curative intent and presented biochemical recurrence following ASTRO 1996 criteria. A total of 35 studies involving 3910 patients submitted to 68-Ga-PSMA PET were included and independently assessed by two authors: 8 studies on diagnosis, four on staging, and 23 studies on restaging purposes. The significance level was α=0.05. RESULTS: pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.90 (0.86-0.93) and 0.90 (0.82-0.96), respectively, for diagnostic purposes; as for staging, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.93 (0.86-0.98) and 0.96 (0.92-0.99), respectively. In the restaging scenario, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.76 (0.74-0.78) and 0.45 (0.27-0.58), respectively, considering the identification of prostate cancer in each described situation. We also obtained specificity and sensitivity results for PSA subdivisions. CONCLUSION: 68Ga-PSMA PET provides higher sensitivity and specificity than traditional imaging for prostate cancer.
