% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{AfsharOromieh:144436,
      author       = {A. Afshar-Oromieh and B. Vollnberg and I. Alberts and A.
                      Bähler and C. Sachpekidis and L. Dijkstra and F. Haupt and
                      S. Boxler and T. Gross and T. Holland-Letz$^*$ and G.
                      Thalmann and J. Heverhagen and A. Rominger and K. Härmä
                      and M. H. Maurer},
      title        = {{C}omparison of {PSMA}-ligand {PET}/{CT} and
                      multiparametric {MRI} for the detection of recurrent
                      prostate cancer in the pelvis.},
      journal      = {European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging},
      volume       = {46},
      number       = {11},
      issn         = {1619-7089},
      address      = {Heidelberg [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Springer-Verl.},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2019-01888},
      pages        = {2289-2297},
      year         = {2019},
      abstract     = {So 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.},
      cin          = {C060},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)C060-20160331},
      pnm          = {313 - Cancer risk factors and prevention (POF3-313)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-313},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:31350604},
      doi          = {10.1007/s00259-019-04438-w},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/144436},
}