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
. 2025 Sep;28(3):834-836.
doi: 10.1038/s41391-024-00899-9. Epub 2024 Sep 23.

The appropriateness of PSMA PET/CT in newly diagnosed unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients-towards a tumor volume-based risk stratification

Marinus J Hagens #  1   2   3 , Wietske I Luining #  4   5 , Liselotte M S Boevé  6 , Remco J J Knol  7 , Ton A Roeleveld  5   8 , Sandra Srbljin  9 , Saskia Weltings  10 , Jose C C Koppes  11 , Daniela E Oprea-Lager  11 , André N Vis  4   5 , Pim J van Leeuwen  12   5 , Henk G van der Poel  12   4   5
Affiliations

The appropriateness of PSMA PET/CT in newly diagnosed unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients-towards a tumor volume-based risk stratification

Marinus J Hagens et al. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2025 Sep.

Abstract

Background/objectives: This study reassesses the diagnostic value of PSMA PET/CT in unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa) and validates the Prostate Cancer Network the Netherlands (PCNN) subclassification.

Subjects/methods: Men subjected to PSMA PET/CT were analyzed, evaluating the incidence of metastatic disease and its correlation with PCNN subgroups.

Results: Metastatic disease was identified in 12.4% of patients. Higher PCNN subgroups correlated with increased metastatic potential; odds were significantly lower in low metastatic potential cases (OR: 0.19, 95% CI 0.06-0.62; p = 0.01).

Conclusions: Our findings reaffirm PSMA PET/CT's diagnostic value in unfavorable intermediate-risk PCa and validate the PCNN subclassification, reducing scan burden by 48.1%.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

References

    1. Jadvar H, Calais J, Fanti S, Feng F, Greene KL, Gulley JL, et al. Appropriate use criteria for prostate-specific membrane antigen PET imaging. J Nucl Med. 2022;63:59–68. - PubMed - PMC
    1. Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, 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. 2021;79:243–62. - PubMed
    1. Eastham JA, Auffenberg GB, Barocas DA, Chou R, Crispino T, Davis JW, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO guideline, part I: introduction, risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management. J Urol. 2022;208:10–18. - PubMed
    1. Yaxley JW, Raveenthiran S, Nouhaud FX, Samaratunga H, Yaxley WJ, Coughlin G, et al. Risk of metastatic disease on 68gallium-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan for primary staging of 1253 men at the diagnosis of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2019;124:401–7. - PubMed
    1. Rogasch JM, Cash H, Zschaeck S, Elezkurtaj S, Brenner W, Hamm B, et al. Ga-68-PSMA PET/CT in treatment-naïve patients with prostate cancer: which clinical parameters and risk stratification systems best predict PSMA-positive metastases? Prostate. 2018;78:1103–10.