000144436 001__ 144436
000144436 005__ 20240229112624.0
000144436 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1007/s00259-019-04438-w
000144436 0247_ $$2pmid$$apmid:31350604
000144436 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a0340-6997
000144436 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a1432-105X
000144436 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a1619-7070
000144436 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a1619-7089
000144436 0247_ $$2altmetric$$aaltmetric:64228633
000144436 037__ $$aDKFZ-2019-01888
000144436 041__ $$aeng
000144436 082__ $$a610
000144436 1001_ $$aAfshar-Oromieh, Ali$$b0
000144436 245__ $$aComparison of PSMA-ligand PET/CT and multiparametric MRI for the detection of recurrent prostate cancer in the pelvis.
000144436 260__ $$aHeidelberg [u.a.]$$bSpringer-Verl.$$c2019
000144436 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
000144436 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
000144436 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article$$bjournal$$mjournal$$s1569308974_16009
000144436 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
000144436 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
000144436 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
000144436 520__ $$aSo far, there have been very few studies which provide a direct comparison between MRI and PSMA-ligand PET/CT for the detection of recurrent prostate cancer (rPC). This present study therefore aims to provide further clinical data in order to resolve this urgent clinical question, and thereby strengthen clinical recommendations.A retrospective analysis was performed for patients who were scanned at our institution with whole-body PSMA-PET/CT (tracer: 68Ga-PSMA-11) between January 2017 and September 2018 in order to detect rPC. Amongst them, 43 underwent an additional pelvic MRI within 2 months. Both modalities were compared as follows: a consensus read of the PET data was performed by two nuclear physicians. All lesions were recorded with respect to their type and localization. The same process was conducted by two radiologists for pelvic MRI. Thereafter, both modalities were directly compared for every patient and lesion.Overall, 30/43 patients (69.8%) presented with a pathologic MRI and 38/43 (88.4%) with a pathologic PSMA-PET/CT of the pelvis. MRI detected 53 pelvic rPC lesions (13 of them classified as 'uncertain') and PSMA-PET/CT detected 75 pelvic lesions (three classified as 'uncertain'). The superiority of PSMA-PET/CT was statistically significant only if uncertain lesions were classified as false-positive.PSMA-PET/CT detected more pelvic lesions characteristic for rPC when compared to MRI. In order to detect rPC, a potential future scenario could be conducting first a PSMA-PET/CT. Combining the advantages of both modalities in hybrid PET/MRI scanners would be an ideal future scenario.
000144436 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-313$$a313 - Cancer risk factors and prevention (POF3-313)$$cPOF3-313$$fPOF III$$x0
000144436 588__ $$aDataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed,
000144436 7001_ $$aVollnberg, Bernd$$b1
000144436 7001_ $$aAlberts, Ian$$b2
000144436 7001_ $$aBähler, Alexandrine$$b3
000144436 7001_ $$aSachpekidis, Christos$$b4
000144436 7001_ $$aDijkstra, Lotte$$b5
000144436 7001_ $$aHaupt, Fabian$$b6
000144436 7001_ $$aBoxler, Silvan$$b7
000144436 7001_ $$aGross, Tobias$$b8
000144436 7001_ $$0P:(DE-He78)457c042884c901eb0a02c18bb1d30103$$aHolland-Letz, Tim$$b9$$udkfz
000144436 7001_ $$aThalmann, George$$b10
000144436 7001_ $$aHeverhagen, Johannes$$b11
000144436 7001_ $$aRominger, Axel$$b12
000144436 7001_ $$aHärmä, Kirsi$$b13
000144436 7001_ $$aMaurer, Martin H$$b14
000144436 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)2098375-X$$a10.1007/s00259-019-04438-w$$n11$$p2289-2297$$tEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging$$v46$$x1619-7089$$y2019
000144436 909CO $$ooai:inrepo02.dkfz.de:144436$$pVDB
000144436 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$6P:(DE-He78)457c042884c901eb0a02c18bb1d30103$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b9$$kDKFZ
000144436 9131_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-313$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF3-310$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF3-300$$3G:(DE-HGF)POF3$$4G:(DE-HGF)POF$$aDE-HGF$$bGesundheit$$lKrebsforschung$$vCancer risk factors and prevention$$x0
000144436 9141_ $$y2019
000144436 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0200$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bSCOPUS
000144436 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0300$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bMedline
000144436 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0310$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bNCBI Molecular Biology Database
000144436 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0600$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bEbsco Academic Search
000144436 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0030$$2StatID$$aPeer Review$$bASC
000144436 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0100$$2StatID$$aJCR$$bEUR J NUCL MED MOL I : 2017
000144436 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0199$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bClarivate Analytics Master Journal List
000144436 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0110$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index
000144436 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0150$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bWeb of Science Core Collection
000144436 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0111$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index Expanded
000144436 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1110$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bCurrent Contents - Clinical Medicine
000144436 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1030$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bCurrent Contents - Life Sciences
000144436 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)9905$$2StatID$$aIF >= 5$$bEUR J NUCL MED MOL I : 2017
000144436 9201_ $$0I:(DE-He78)C060-20160331$$kC060$$lBiostatistik$$x0
000144436 980__ $$ajournal
000144436 980__ $$aVDB
000144436 980__ $$aI:(DE-He78)C060-20160331
000144436 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED