References
Grawe F, Blom F, Winkelmann M, et al (2023) Reliability and practicability of PSMA-RADS 1.0 for structured reporting of PSMA-PET/CT scans in prostate cancer patients. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-10083-7
Dondi F, Lazzarato A, Gorica J et al (2023) PET criteria by cancer type from imaging interpretation to treatment response assessment: beyond FDG PET score. Life (Basel) 13:611
Leung KH, Rowe SP, Leal JP et al (2022) Deep learning and radiomics framework for PSMA-RADS classification of prostate cancer on PSMA PET. EJNMMI Res 12(1):76
Letang A, Crombé A, Rousseau C et al (2022) Bone uptake in prostate cancer patients: diagnostic performances of PSMA-RADS v1.0, clinical, biological, and 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET features to predict metastasis after biochemical recurrence. Clin Nucl Med 47(8):e529–e539
Kuten J, Dekalo S, Mintz I et al (2021) The significance of equivocal bone findings in staging PSMA imaging in the preoperative setting: validation of the PSMA-RADS version 1.0. EJNMMI Res 11(1):3
Bhoil A, Seshadri N, Vinjamuri S (2022) Indeterminate skeletal and lymph node lesion on 18F PSMA 1007 PET/CT scanning: lessons from a review at 12 months with PSMA-RADS. Nucl Med Commun. 43(9):1034–1041
Chiu LW, Lawhn-Heath C, Behr SC et al (2020) Factors predicting metastatic disease in 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET-positive osseous lesions in prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 61(12):1779–1785
Rowe SP, Li X, Trock BJ et al (2020) Prospective comparison of PET imaging with PSMA-targeted 18F-DCFPyL versus Na18F for bone lesion detection in patients with metastatic prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 61(2):183–188
Funding
The authors state that this work has not received any funding.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Guarantor
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Laura Evangelista.
Conflict of interest
The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.
Statistics and biometry
No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.
Informed consent
Written informed consent was not required.
Ethical approval
Institutional Review Board approval was not required because this is an editorial.
Study subjects or cohorts overlap
Not applicable
Methodology
• commentary
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This comment refers to the article available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-10083-7.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Evangelista, L., Filippi, L. Structured reporting in prostate cancer: the revolution of quality in nuclear medicine scan interpretation. Eur Radiol 34, 1155–1156 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-10507-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-10507-4