Background and purpose <p>Previous studies have shown that long axial field-of-view (LAFOV) <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT can significantly improve the detection rate compared to short axial field-of-view (SAFOV) <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in prostate cancer. However, the diagnostic efficiency between the two scans was compared in different cohorts, not directly within the same patients. Whether LAFOV <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET could improve image quality, enhance lesion quantification, and impact patient treatment decisions in the same patients remains unclear. To address this research gap, we performed a direct comparison of LAFOV and SAFOV <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET in the same cohort of prostate cancer patients to evaluate whether LAFOV <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET could enhance lesion identification and modify clinical management compared to SAFOV <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET.</p> Methods <p>Thirty-four patients with prostate cancer undergoing routine <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT were included and underwent a same-day dual-scanning protocol. Half of the patients first underwent a clinically routine SAFOV PET scan using continuous bed motion, followed immediately by LAFOV PET (5-minute acquisition in list mode); the other half underwent scanning in the reverse order. The image quality of LAFOV and SAFOV <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET was compared using subjective scoring and objective parameters. Objective parameters, including maximum and mean standardized uptake values (SUVmax and SUVmean), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and tumor-to-background ratio (TBR), were measured and compared.</p> Results <p>LAFOV <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET exhibited superior image quality compared to SAFOV PET based on both subjective and objective parameters. LAFOV <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET had better image quality and higher lesion SUVmax, SNR, and TBR compared to SAFOV PET. In 17.65% of patients, LAFOV <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET detected additional lesions that were unidentified on SAFOV <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET. Compared to SAFOV <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET, LAFOV <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET detected additional lesions in 33.33% of patients with biochemical recurrence and 9.09% of patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, leading to significant changes in clinical management.</p> Conclusions <p>In this head-to-head comparison, LAFOV <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET demonstrated superior image quality, enhanced lesion detection, and a significant impact on clinical management for both biochemical recurrence and newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients compared to SAFOV <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET. These findings suggest that LAFOV <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET may be the preferred imaging modality for comprehensive prostate cancer evaluation.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Superiority of long axial field-of-view 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET over short axial field-of-view PET in prostate cancer: a head-to-head comparison

  • Yining Wang,
  • Lijing Zhu,
  • Lian Xu,
  • Liang Dong,
  • Haitao Zhao,
  • Lianghua Li,
  • Gang Huang,
  • Ruohua Chen,
  • Jianjun Liu

摘要

Background and purpose

Previous studies have shown that long axial field-of-view (LAFOV) 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT can significantly improve the detection rate compared to short axial field-of-view (SAFOV) 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in prostate cancer. However, the diagnostic efficiency between the two scans was compared in different cohorts, not directly within the same patients. Whether LAFOV 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET could improve image quality, enhance lesion quantification, and impact patient treatment decisions in the same patients remains unclear. To address this research gap, we performed a direct comparison of LAFOV and SAFOV 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET in the same cohort of prostate cancer patients to evaluate whether LAFOV 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET could enhance lesion identification and modify clinical management compared to SAFOV 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET.

Methods

Thirty-four patients with prostate cancer undergoing routine 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT were included and underwent a same-day dual-scanning protocol. Half of the patients first underwent a clinically routine SAFOV PET scan using continuous bed motion, followed immediately by LAFOV PET (5-minute acquisition in list mode); the other half underwent scanning in the reverse order. The image quality of LAFOV and SAFOV 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET was compared using subjective scoring and objective parameters. Objective parameters, including maximum and mean standardized uptake values (SUVmax and SUVmean), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and tumor-to-background ratio (TBR), were measured and compared.

Results

LAFOV 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET exhibited superior image quality compared to SAFOV PET based on both subjective and objective parameters. LAFOV 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET had better image quality and higher lesion SUVmax, SNR, and TBR compared to SAFOV PET. In 17.65% of patients, LAFOV 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET detected additional lesions that were unidentified on SAFOV 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET. Compared to SAFOV 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET, LAFOV 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET detected additional lesions in 33.33% of patients with biochemical recurrence and 9.09% of patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, leading to significant changes in clinical management.

Conclusions

In this head-to-head comparison, LAFOV 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET demonstrated superior image quality, enhanced lesion detection, and a significant impact on clinical management for both biochemical recurrence and newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients compared to SAFOV 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET. These findings suggest that LAFOV 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET may be the preferred imaging modality for comprehensive prostate cancer evaluation.