Local staging of de novo prostate cancer using mpMRI, PSMA-PET and PSMA-PET/mpMRI - a comparative study.
1/5 보강
PICO 자동 추출 (휴리스틱, conf 3/4)
유사 논문P · Population 대상 환자/모집단
환자: intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer scheduled for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy were included
I · Intervention 중재 / 시술
[Ga]PSMA-PET/mpMRI prior to surgery
C · Comparison 대조 / 비교
추출되지 않음
O · Outcome 결과 / 결론
For SVI, sensitivity was 50% for PSMA-PET/mpMRI and 38% for mpMRI and PSMA-PET, with a specificity of 100%, 95% and 97% respectively. [CONCLUSIONS] PSMA-PET/mpMRI provided higher and a more consistent performance in localized prostate cancer detection and staging without increasing false-positive findings.
[BACKGROUND] Accurate diagnosis and staging are essential for optimal treatment planning of prostate cancer.
- Sensitivity 50%
- Specificity 100%
APA
Grefve J, Strandberg SN, et al. (2025). Local staging of de novo prostate cancer using mpMRI, PSMA-PET and PSMA-PET/mpMRI - a comparative study.. EJNMMI research, 15(1), 135. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-025-01334-3
MLA
Grefve J, et al.. "Local staging of de novo prostate cancer using mpMRI, PSMA-PET and PSMA-PET/mpMRI - a comparative study.." EJNMMI research, vol. 15, no. 1, 2025, pp. 135.
PMID
41247538 ↗
Abstract 한글 요약
[BACKGROUND] Accurate diagnosis and staging are essential for optimal treatment planning of prostate cancer. By combining functional and anatomical imaging, PSMA-PET/mpMRI offers a potential to improve lesion detection and enhance staging accuracy. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of lesion detection and local staging of prostate cancer using combined PSMA-PET/mpMRI compared to standalone mpMRI or PSMA-PET.
[RESULTS] Fifty-five patients with intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer scheduled for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy were included. All patients underwent [Ga]PSMA-PET/mpMRI prior to surgery. Whole-mount histopathology and surgical report served as reference standard. Two radiologists independently evaluated mpMRI, while two nuclear medicine physicians assessed PSMA-PET. For the PSMA-PET/mpMRI analysis, a consensus evaluation was performed by a new set of readers in two teams, each comprising one radiologist and one nuclear medicine physician. Lesion localization was reported based on the PI-RADS v2.1 sector map and compared to histopathology. Among 130 histopathologically confirmed lesions, mean detection rates were 38% (49.5/130) for PSMA-PET/mpMRI, 32% (41/130) for mpMRI and 32% (41/130) for PSMA-PET. For clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC) (≥0.5 ml, ≥ISUP 2; 42 lesions), mean detection rates were 85% (35.5/42) for PSMA-PET/mpMRI, 75% (31.5/42) for mpMRI and 70% (29.5/42) for PSMA-PET. The mean false discovery rates were 8% (PSMA-PET/mpMRI), 15% (mpMRI) and 12% (PSMA-PET). The likelihood of extraprostatic extension (EPE) and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) were scored using a 5-point Likert scale, where scores of 1-3 were classified as negative and scores of 4-5 were considered positive. Sensitivity for EPE was 32% for PSMA-PET/mpMRI, 37% for mpMRI and 7% for PSMA-PET, with a specificity of 100%, 96% and 98%, respectively. For SVI, sensitivity was 50% for PSMA-PET/mpMRI and 38% for mpMRI and PSMA-PET, with a specificity of 100%, 95% and 97% respectively.
[CONCLUSIONS] PSMA-PET/mpMRI provided higher and a more consistent performance in localized prostate cancer detection and staging without increasing false-positive findings.
[RESULTS] Fifty-five patients with intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer scheduled for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy were included. All patients underwent [Ga]PSMA-PET/mpMRI prior to surgery. Whole-mount histopathology and surgical report served as reference standard. Two radiologists independently evaluated mpMRI, while two nuclear medicine physicians assessed PSMA-PET. For the PSMA-PET/mpMRI analysis, a consensus evaluation was performed by a new set of readers in two teams, each comprising one radiologist and one nuclear medicine physician. Lesion localization was reported based on the PI-RADS v2.1 sector map and compared to histopathology. Among 130 histopathologically confirmed lesions, mean detection rates were 38% (49.5/130) for PSMA-PET/mpMRI, 32% (41/130) for mpMRI and 32% (41/130) for PSMA-PET. For clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC) (≥0.5 ml, ≥ISUP 2; 42 lesions), mean detection rates were 85% (35.5/42) for PSMA-PET/mpMRI, 75% (31.5/42) for mpMRI and 70% (29.5/42) for PSMA-PET. The mean false discovery rates were 8% (PSMA-PET/mpMRI), 15% (mpMRI) and 12% (PSMA-PET). The likelihood of extraprostatic extension (EPE) and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) were scored using a 5-point Likert scale, where scores of 1-3 were classified as negative and scores of 4-5 were considered positive. Sensitivity for EPE was 32% for PSMA-PET/mpMRI, 37% for mpMRI and 7% for PSMA-PET, with a specificity of 100%, 96% and 98%, respectively. For SVI, sensitivity was 50% for PSMA-PET/mpMRI and 38% for mpMRI and PSMA-PET, with a specificity of 100%, 95% and 97% respectively.
[CONCLUSIONS] PSMA-PET/mpMRI provided higher and a more consistent performance in localized prostate cancer detection and staging without increasing false-positive findings.