Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Mismatched Imaging Findings of Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT vs mpMRI

  • Interesting image
  • Published:
Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is the modality of choice for initial diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa), including biopsy-naïve patients. Nevertheless, clinicians must be aware of the possibility that up to one-fourth of clinically significant cancers might be missed by the modality. Acknowledgment of this occurrence and the increased availability of 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT in clinical routine, open the door to new, fascinating, indications for this functional modality in the context of PCa detection. With the case herein illustrated, we report a paradigmatic example of mismatch findings between PET/CT and mpMRI better elucidating the potential indication.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Data availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Abbreviations

DCE:

Dynamic contrast enhanced

DRE:

Digital rectal examination

DWI-ADC:

Diffusion-weighted imaging-apparent diffusion coefficient

EAU:

European Association of Urology

GS:

Gleason score

mpMRI:

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging

PCa:

Prostate cancer

PET/CT:

Positron emission tomography/computed tomography

PI-RADS:

Prostate imaging reporting and data system

PSA:

Prostate-specific antigen

PSMA:

Prostate-specific membrane antigen

RALP:

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy

ROIs:

Regions of interest

SUV:

Standardized uptake value

TRUS:

Transrectal ultrasound

References

  1. Lopci E, Saita A, Lazzeri M, et al. 68Ga-PSMA positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for primary diagnosis of prostate cancer in men with contraindications to or negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a prospective observational study. J Urol. 2018;200:95–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1 screening diagnosis and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71:618–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mottet N, Roderick CN, van den Bergh, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on prostate cancer—2020 Update.Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2020;S0302–2838(20)30769–7.

  4. Lopci E, Lughezzani G, Castello A, et al. Prospective evaluation of 68Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand positron emission tomography/computed tomography in primary prostate cancer diagnosis. Eur Urol Focus. 2020;S2405–4569(20):30092–4.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lopci E, Lughezzani G, Castello A, et al. PSMA-PET and micro-ultrasound potential in the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer. Clin Transl Oncol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-020-02384-w.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Nadia Lo Iacono of the Urology Department for the collection of the clinical data and Federica Mrakic Sposta of the Departments of Radiology for the multiparametric MRI assessment.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Egesta Lopci contributed in planning, conception, data acquisition, analysis, and reporting of the work in the current paper. Piergiuseppe Colombo contributed in data collection and final approval of manuscript. Massimo Lazzeri contributed in study conduct, manuscript revision, and final approval of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Egesta Lopci.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval and consent to participate

All procedures performed involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individuals.

Consent for publication

The patient has signed a general informed consent for scientific publication.

Competing interests

Egesta Lopci reports receiving grants from Fondazione AIRC (Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro) and from the Italian Ministry of Health, and faculty remuneration from ESMIT (European School of Multimodality Imaging & Therapy) and MI&T congress. Piergiuseppe Colombo and Massimo Lazzeri declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lopci, E., Colombo, P. & Lazzeri, M. Mismatched Imaging Findings of Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT vs mpMRI. Nucl Med Mol Imaging 55, 199–202 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-021-00701-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-021-00701-x

Keywords

Navigation