TY - JOUR
T1 - Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) fusion imaging in prostate cancer
T2 - PET-CT vs PET-MRI
AU - Liu, Feng Yuan
AU - Sheng, Ting Wen
AU - Tseng, Jing Ren
AU - Yu, Kai Jie
AU - Tsui, Ke Hong
AU - Pang, Se Tong
AU - Wang, Li Jen
AU - Lin, Gigin
N1 - Funding Information:
Grants from Chang Gung Memorial Foundation (CPRPG3G0023 and CLRPG3K0021) and Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (MOST 109-2628-B-182A-007). Chang Gung IRB 104-4855A and 106-6435C.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 British Institute of Radiology. All rights reserved.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Objectives: To investigate whether PET-CT or PET- MRI is more appropriate for imaging prostate cancer, in terms of primary tumor detection, local staging and recurrence, as well as lymph nodes and distant metastases. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted on Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library database. Studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of PET-CT vs PET-MRI in prostate cancer patients were emphasized. Results: We reviewed 57 original research articles during the period 2016-2021: 14 articles regarding the radiotracer PSMA; 18 articles regarding the primary tumor detection, local tumor staging, managing local recurrence; 17 articles for managing lymph node metastases; and eight articles for managing bone and other distant metastases. PSMA PET could be complementary to mpMRI for primary prostate cancer localization and is particularly valuable for PI-RADS three lesions. PET-MRI is better than PET-CT in local tumor staging due to its specific benefit in predicting extracapsular extension in MRI-occult prostate cancer patients. PET-MRI is likely superior as compared with PET-CT in detecting local recurrence, and has slightly higher detection rates than PET-CT in lymph node recurrence. PET-CT and PET- MRI seem to have equivalent performance in detecting distant bony or visceral metastases. Conclusion: In conclusion, PET-MRI is suitable for local and regional disease, either primary staging or restaging, whereas PET-CT is valuable for managing distant bony or visceral metastasis. Advances in knowledge: We reviewed the emerging applications of PET-MRI and PET-CT in clinical aspects. Readers will gain an objective overview on the strength and shortfalls of PET-MRI or PET-CT in the management of prostate cancer.
AB - Objectives: To investigate whether PET-CT or PET- MRI is more appropriate for imaging prostate cancer, in terms of primary tumor detection, local staging and recurrence, as well as lymph nodes and distant metastases. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted on Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library database. Studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of PET-CT vs PET-MRI in prostate cancer patients were emphasized. Results: We reviewed 57 original research articles during the period 2016-2021: 14 articles regarding the radiotracer PSMA; 18 articles regarding the primary tumor detection, local tumor staging, managing local recurrence; 17 articles for managing lymph node metastases; and eight articles for managing bone and other distant metastases. PSMA PET could be complementary to mpMRI for primary prostate cancer localization and is particularly valuable for PI-RADS three lesions. PET-MRI is better than PET-CT in local tumor staging due to its specific benefit in predicting extracapsular extension in MRI-occult prostate cancer patients. PET-MRI is likely superior as compared with PET-CT in detecting local recurrence, and has slightly higher detection rates than PET-CT in lymph node recurrence. PET-CT and PET- MRI seem to have equivalent performance in detecting distant bony or visceral metastases. Conclusion: In conclusion, PET-MRI is suitable for local and regional disease, either primary staging or restaging, whereas PET-CT is valuable for managing distant bony or visceral metastasis. Advances in knowledge: We reviewed the emerging applications of PET-MRI and PET-CT in clinical aspects. Readers will gain an objective overview on the strength and shortfalls of PET-MRI or PET-CT in the management of prostate cancer.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85123883092&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85123883092&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1259/bjr.20210728
DO - 10.1259/bjr.20210728
M3 - Review article
C2 - 34767482
AN - SCOPUS:85123883092
SN - 0007-1285
VL - 95
JO - British Journal of Radiology
JF - British Journal of Radiology
IS - 1131
M1 - 20210728
ER -
