Five-year trends of bone scan and prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography utilization in prostate cancer: A retrospective review in a private centre

被引:15
|
作者
Haran, Crishan [1 ]
McBean, Rhiannon [2 ]
Parsons, Rex [2 ]
Wong, David [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Queensland, Sch Med, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[2] Wesley Hosp, Wesley Med Imaging, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
关键词
bone scan; prostate cancer; PSMA PET; staging; uroradiology; BIOCHEMICAL RECURRENCE; DIAGNOSIS; SCINTIGRAPHY; SENSITIVITY; METASTASES; EXPRESSION; CT;
D O I
10.1111/1754-9485.12885
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Introduction In the last 5 years, there has been a significant focus on the use of positron emission tomography (PET) for primary and secondary staging of prostate cancer. In this study, we aim to describe the trends of use between Gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand (Ga-68 PSMA) PET/computed tomography (PSMA PET/CT) and nuclear medicine bone scan (NMBS) for prostate cancer staging in the first institution in Australia to offer both modalities. Methods We evaluated trends in prostate cancer staging/restaging imaging modalities at our facility between the time period January 2013-April 2018. Imaging logs were filtered to identify NMBS and PSMA PET/CT scans done within the time period for prostate cancer. Sub-analysis was undertaken (i) to investigate the number of patients who were imaged using both modalities, (ii) to compare the age of the patients in the NMBS group and the PSMA PET/CT group and (iii) to compare the use of PSMA PET/CT for pre-treatment staging compared to the detection of recurrence or metastatic disease (secondary staging). Results A total of 3144 examinations were performed in the time period reviewed, with 546 NMBS and 2598 PSMA PET/CT scans performed. In the 6 months after PSMA PET/CT was introduced, there was a 45.7% decrease in the number of NMBS performed and 95.3% decrease across the duration of the study. In the PSMA PET/CT cohort, 1569 examinations were performed for pre-treatment staging and 1029 performed for secondary staging. There was a significant difference in the proportion of PSMA PET/CT conducted for pre-treatment staging compared with secondary staging when comparing the first and final 500 examinations (P < 0.05). Conclusion After the introduction of PSMA PET/CT there was a marked decline in the use of NMBS for prostate cancer staging. This finding is of note as it occurred before there was clinical data or guidelines supporting the use of PSMA PET/CT for prostate cancer imaging.
引用
收藏
页码:495 / 499
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [11] Making the case for prostate-specific membrane antigen-targeted positron emission tomography/computed tomography in suspected prostate cancer
    Singh, Harmandeep
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2020, 35 (04): : 281 - 282
  • [12] Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in prostate cancer: a step toward personalized medicine
    Bouchelouche, Kirsten
    Choyke, Peter L.
    CURRENT OPINION IN ONCOLOGY, 2016, 28 (03) : 216 - 221
  • [13] Gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography for staging of high-risk prostate cancer
    Petersen, Lars J.
    Zacho, Helle D.
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2017, 51 (06) : 498 - 501
  • [14] Gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography compared with diagnostic computed tomography in relapsed prostate cancer
    Asokendaran, Marcus Edward
    Meyrick, Danielle P.
    Skelly, Laura A.
    Lenzo, Nat P.
    Henderson, Andrew
    WORLD JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2019, 18 (03) : 232 - 237
  • [15] Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography Oncological Applications beyond Prostate Cancer in Comparison to Other Radiopharmaceuticals
    Miceli, Alberto
    Liberini, Virginia
    Pepe, Giovanna
    Dondi, Francesco
    Vento, Antonio
    Lavarini, Lorenzo Jonghi
    Celesti, Greta
    Gazzilli, Maria
    Serani, Francesca
    Guglielmo, Priscilla
    Buschiazzo, Ambra
    Filice, Rossella
    Alongi, Pierpaolo
    Laudicella, Riccardo
    Santo, Giulia
    DIAGNOSTICS, 2024, 14 (10)
  • [16] 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in advanced prostate cancer: Current state and future trends
    Udovicich, Cristian
    Perera, Marlon
    Hofman, Michael S.
    Siva, Shankar
    Del Rio, Andres
    Murphy, Declan G.
    Lawrentschuk, Nathan
    PROSTATE INTERNATIONAL, 2017, 5 (04) : 125 - 129
  • [17] Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Locally Advanced, Recurrent, and Metastatic Prostate Cancer
    Perera, Marlon
    Murphy, Declan
    Lawrentschuk, Nathan
    JAMA ONCOLOGY, 2018, 4 (05) : 748 - +
  • [18] Using prostate-specific membrane antigen positron-emission tomography to guide prostate biopsies and stage men at high-risk of prostate cancer
    Bodar, Yves J. L.
    Boeve, Liselotte M. S.
    van Leeuwen, Pim J.
    Baars, Phillippe C.
    Nieuwenhuijzen, Jakko A.
    van Haarst, Ernst P.
    Oddens, Jorg R.
    Donswijk, Maarten L.
    van Riel, Luigi A. M. J. G.
    Scheltema, Matthijs J.
    Meijer, Dennie
    Hendrikse, N. Harry
    Oprea-Lager, Daniela E.
    Vis, Andre N.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2023, 132 (06) : 705 - 712
  • [19] The CONFIRM trial protocol: the utility of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography in active surveillance for prostate cancer
    Bagguley, Dominic
    Harewood, Laurence
    McKenzie, Dean
    Ptasznik, Gideon
    Ong, Sean
    Chengodu, Thilakavathi
    Woon, Dixon
    Sim, Kenneth
    Sheldon, James
    Lawrentschuk, Nathan
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2024, 133 : 27 - 36
  • [20] Flourodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography scan may be helpful in the case of ductal variant prostate cancer when prostate specific membrane antigen ligand positron emission tomography scan is negative
    McEwan, Louise M.
    Wong, David
    Yaxley, John
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL IMAGING AND RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2017, 61 (04) : 503 - 505