Abstract

Positron emission tomography in association with magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MR) and 68Ga-PSMA-11 has shown superior detection in recurrent prostate cancer patients as compared to PET/computed tomography (PET/CT). There are, however, several technological differences between PET/CT and PET/MR systems which affect the PET image quality. The objective of this study was to assess the reproducibility of PET/CT and PET/MR SUV's in recurrent prostate cancer patients. We randomized the patients regarding the order of the PET/CT and PET/MR scans to reduce the influence of tracer uptake as a function of time. Thirty patients, all with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy, underwent whole-body PET/CT and PET/MR scans after intravenous injection of a single dose of 68Ga-PSMA-11. Fifteen patients underwent PET/CT first and 15 patients underwent PET/MR first. Volumes of interest on tumor lesions were outlined and maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) corrected for lean body mass was calculated. Correlation and agreement between scans were assessed by generalized linear mixed-effects models and Bland-Altman analysis. The association between SUV, patient characteristics and imaging parameters was assessed. Eighteen of the 30 evaluated patients had at least one positive lesion, giving an overall detection rate of 60%. In total, there were 34 visible lesions: 5 local recurrences, 22 lymph node metastases and 7 bone metastases. One group acquired PET/CT and PET/MR at median time points of 63.0 and 159.0min, while the other group acquired PET/MR and PET/CT at median time points of 92.0 and 149.0min. SUVmax between scans was linearly correlated, described by the equation Y(PET/CT SUVmax) = 0.75 + 1.00 × (PET/MR SUVmax), on average 20% higher on PET/CT than on PET/MR. SUV associated significantly only with type of lesion, scan time post-injection and acquisition time per bed position. SUVmax from PET/CT and PET/MR are linearly correlated, on average 20% higher on PET/CT than on PET/MR and should, therefore, not be used interchangeably in patient follow-up.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call