000137610 001__ 137610
000137610 005__ 20240229105112.0
000137610 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.2967/jnumed.117.200220
000137610 0247_ $$2pmid$$apmid:29371410
000137610 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a0022-3123
000137610 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a0097-9058
000137610 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a0161-5505
000137610 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a1535-5667
000137610 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a2159-662X
000137610 0247_ $$2altmetric$$aaltmetric:32305943
000137610 037__ $$aDKFZ-2018-01490
000137610 041__ $$aeng
000137610 082__ $$a610
000137610 1001_ $$aRathke, Hendrik$$b0
000137610 245__ $$aIntraindividual Comparison of 99mTc-Methylene Diphosphonate and Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Ligand 99mTc-MIP-1427 in Patients with Osseous Metastasized Prostate Cancer.
000137610 260__ $$aNew York, NY$$bSoc.$$c2018
000137610 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
000137610 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
000137610 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article$$bjournal$$mjournal$$s1538461028_12288
000137610 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
000137610 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
000137610 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
000137610 520__ $$aThe objective of this study was to evaluate the rate of detection of bone metastases obtained with the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeting tracer 99mTc-MIP-1427, as opposed to conventional bone scanning with 99mTc-methylene diphosphonate (99mTc-MDP), in a collective of patients with known advanced-stage osseous metastasized prostate cancer. Methods: Twenty-one patients with known metastatic disease were staged with both conventional bone scanning and PSMA ligand scintigraphy within a time frame of less than 10 d. Imaging included planar whole-body scanning and SPECT or SPECT/CT with 2 bed positions 3 h after injection of either 500-750 MBq of 99mTc-MIP-1427 or 600-750 MBq of 99mTc-MDP. Lesions were scored as typical tumor, equivocal (benign/malignant), or normal within a standard reporting schema divided into defined anatomic regions. Masked and consensus readings were performed with sequential unmasking: planar scans first, then SPECT/CT, the best evaluable comparator (including MRI), PET/CT, and follow-up examinations. Results: Eleven patients had PSMA-positive visceral metastases that were predictably not diagnosed with conventional bone scanning. However, SPECT/CT was required to distinguish between soft-tissue uptake and overlapping bone. Four patients had extensive 99mTc-MDP-negative bone marrow lesions. Seven patients had superscan characteristics on bone scans; in contrast, the extent of red marrow involvement was more evident on PSMA scans. Only 3 patients had equivalent results on bone scans and PSMA scans. In 16 patients, more suspect lesions were detected with PSMA scanning than with bone scanning. In 2 patients (10%), a PSMA-negative tumor phenotype was present. Conclusion: PSMA scanning provided a clear advantage over bone scanning by reducing the number of equivocal findings in most patients. SPECT/CT was pivotal for differentiating bone metastases from extraosseous tumor lesions.
000137610 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-319H$$a319H - Addenda (POF3-319H)$$cPOF3-319H$$fPOF III$$x0
000137610 588__ $$aDataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed,
000137610 7001_ $$aAfshar-Oromieh, Ali$$b1
000137610 7001_ $$aGiesel, Frederik Lars$$b2
000137610 7001_ $$aKremer, Christophe$$b3
000137610 7001_ $$aFlechsig, Paul$$b4
000137610 7001_ $$aHaufe, Sabine$$b5
000137610 7001_ $$aMier, Walter$$b6
000137610 7001_ $$0P:(DE-He78)457c042884c901eb0a02c18bb1d30103$$aHolland-Letz, Tim$$b7$$udkfz
000137610 7001_ $$aDe Bucourt, Maximilian$$b8
000137610 7001_ $$aArmor, Thomas$$b9
000137610 7001_ $$aBabich, John W$$b10
000137610 7001_ $$0P:(DE-He78)13a0afba029f5f64dc18b25ef7499558$$aHaberkorn, Uwe$$b11$$udkfz
000137610 7001_ $$aKratochwil, Clemens$$b12
000137610 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)2040222-3$$a10.2967/jnumed.117.200220$$gVol. 59, no. 9, p. 1373 - 1379$$n9$$p1373 - 1379$$tJournal of nuclear medicine$$v59$$x2159-662X$$y2018
000137610 909CO $$ooai:inrepo02.dkfz.de:137610$$pVDB
000137610 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$6P:(DE-He78)457c042884c901eb0a02c18bb1d30103$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b7$$kDKFZ
000137610 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$6P:(DE-He78)13a0afba029f5f64dc18b25ef7499558$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b11$$kDKFZ
000137610 9131_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-319H$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF3-310$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF3-300$$3G:(DE-HGF)POF3$$4G:(DE-HGF)POF$$aDE-HGF$$bGesundheit$$lKrebsforschung$$vAddenda$$x0
000137610 9141_ $$y2018
000137610 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0100$$2StatID$$aJCR$$bJ NUCL MED : 2015
000137610 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0200$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bSCOPUS
000137610 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0300$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bMedline
000137610 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0310$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bNCBI Molecular Biology Database
000137610 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0199$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bThomson Reuters Master Journal List
000137610 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0110$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index
000137610 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0150$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bWeb of Science Core Collection
000137610 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0111$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index Expanded
000137610 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1110$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bCurrent Contents - Clinical Medicine
000137610 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1030$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bCurrent Contents - Life Sciences
000137610 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1050$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bBIOSIS Previews
000137610 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)9905$$2StatID$$aIF >= 5$$bJ NUCL MED : 2015
000137610 9201_ $$0I:(DE-He78)C060-20160331$$kC060$$lBiostatistik$$x0
000137610 9201_ $$0I:(DE-He78)E060-20160331$$kE060$$lKKE Nuklearmedizin$$x1
000137610 980__ $$ajournal
000137610 980__ $$aVDB
000137610 980__ $$aI:(DE-He78)C060-20160331
000137610 980__ $$aI:(DE-He78)E060-20160331
000137610 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED