Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Sep;30(5):649-653.
doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000795.

Clinical impact of PET imaging in prostate cancer management

Louise Emmett  1   2 , George Hruby  3   4
Affiliations
Review

Clinical impact of PET imaging in prostate cancer management

Louise Emmett et al. Curr Opin Urol. 2020 Sep.

Abstract

Purpose of review: Imaging of prostate cancer has been a rapidly evolving field in recent years with the introduction of multiple new PET tracer agents. Introduction of novel imaging techniques into clinical practice requires careful evaluation, with the ultimate aims of improved patient outcomes, better sequencing of treatments, and cost effectiveness. The increased sensitivity and specificity of these new PET agents present both challenges and opportunities. We know they frequently change management, but are these effective management changes, and is it always in the best interests of the patients?

Recent findings: This review will focus on recent publications that provide high-level evidence for the use of PET in prostate cancer. It will discuss studies that have evaluated the clinical impact of PET imaging in prostate cancer and will review a number of trials that demonstrate the potential of PET to change current standard of care, from diagnosis, to prognostic capabilities in men with metastatic prostate cancer.

Summary: Evidence for the use of PET in prostate cancer is building with studies evaluating diagnostic accuracy of PET at all stages of prostate cancer. We review the evidence available, focusing on prospective trials that are measuring the impact of new technology on patient outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Calais J, Ceci F, Eiber M, et al. (18)F-fluciclovine PET-CT and (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET-CT in patients with early biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy: a prospective, single-centre, single-arm, comparative imaging trial. Lancet Oncol 2019; 20:1286–1294.
    1. Morigi JJ, Stricker PD, van Leeuwen PJ, et al. Prospective comparison of 18F-Fluoromethylcholine versus 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in prostate cancer patients who have rising PSA after curative treatment and are being considered for targeted therapy. J Nucl Med 2015; 56:1185–1190.
    1. Afshar-Oromieh A, Zechmann CM, Malcher A, et al. Comparison of PET imaging with a (68)Ga-labelled PSMA ligand and (18)F-choline-based PET/CT for the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2014; 41:11–20.
    1. Emmett L, Metser U, Bauman G, et al. A prospective, multisite, international comparison of F-18 fluoro-methyl-choline, multiparametric magnetic resonance and Ga-68 HBED-CC (PSMA-11) in men with high-risk features and biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy: clinical performance and patient outcomes. J Nucl Med 2019; 60:794–800.
    1. Kaittanis C, Andreou C, Hieronymus H, et al. Prostate-specific membrane antigen cleavage of vitamin B9 stimulates oncogenic signaling through metabotropic glutamate receptors. J Exp Med 2018; 215:159–175.

MeSH terms