% 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{Seifert:275761,
      author       = {R. Seifert$^*$ and T. Telli$^*$ and B. Hadaschik$^*$ and W.
                      P. Fendler$^*$ and P. H. Kuo and K. Herrmann$^*$},
      title        = {{I}s 18{F}-{FDG} {PET} {N}eeded to {A}ssess 177{L}u-{PSMA}
                      {T}herapy {E}ligibility? {A} {VISION}-like,
                      {S}ingle-{C}enter {A}nalysis.},
      journal      = {Journal of nuclear medicine},
      volume       = {64},
      number       = {5},
      issn         = {0097-9058},
      address      = {New York, NY},
      publisher    = {Soc.},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2023-00860},
      pages        = {731 - 737},
      year         = {2023},
      abstract     = {18F-FDG and prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET
                      have been used to assess eligibility for PSMA-targeted
                      therapy by some centers. However, it remains unclear whether
                      both examinations are needed as a part of workup in the
                      clinical practice or whether PSMA PET alone, as was done in
                      the positive phase 3 VISION trial, is sufficient to identify
                      suitable candidates. The aim was to reanalyze all patients
                      who underwent both 18F-FDG and PSMA PET for PSMA-targeted
                      therapy eligibility assessment using the VISION trial
                      criteria. Methods: Eighty-nine men with metastatic
                      castration-resistant prostate cancer referred to 177Lu-PSMA
                      therapy from June 2019 to October 2021 who underwent both
                      18F-FDG and PSMA PET (using either 68Ga-PSMA-11 or
                      18F-PSMA-1007) examinations within 2 wk were included in
                      this analysis. Eligibility status was determined in
                      accordance with either knowledge of both 18F-FDG and PSMA
                      PET (clinical routine) or VISION criteria with PSMA PET-only
                      (study reassessment, done twice with liver only for PSMA-11
                      and liver/spleen as reference for PSMA-1007). A metastasis
                      seen on 18F-FDG PET or CT but not on PSMA PET was denoted as
                      a mismatch finding and led to exclusion from 177Lu-PSMA
                      therapy. On the basis of clinical assessment, 52 patients
                      received 177Lu-PSMA therapy, and 37 did not; all patients
                      were reassessed. Results: Patients treated with 177Lu-PSMA
                      therapy had significantly longer overall survival than those
                      not treated (12.4 vs. 6.8 mo, P < 0.01). PSMA-only analysis
                      (spleen/liver reference) and 18F-FDG/PSMA mismatch reads had
                      substantial agreement (Cohen κ = 0.73). Eighteen percent (n
                      = 16/89) of patients had a mismatch finding based on
                      18F-FDG/PSMA PET. With the liver/spleen reference, a minor
                      fraction of patients who had no mismatch finding (and were
                      therefore treated) would have been withheld from therapy by
                      PSMA-only analysis $(3\%).$ Three percent (n = 3) of all
                      patients had an 18F-FDG/PSMA mismatch finding not detected
                      by PSMA PET-only (VISION-like) analysis. For patients not
                      receiving PSMA therapy, the overall survival was not
                      statistically significantly different comparing 18F-FDG/PSMA
                      mismatch versus nonmismatch (P = 0.61) patients. Conclusion:
                      18F-FDG and PSMA PET provide complementary information, yet
                      less than $5\%$ of patients had mismatch findings not
                      detected using PSMA PET-only. Based on our data,
                      18F-FDG/PSMA mismatch examination and PSMA-only analysis
                      have a substantial level of agreement.},
      keywords     = {Male / Humans / Fluorodeoxyglucose F18 /
                      Radiopharmaceuticals: therapeutic use / Dipeptides:
                      therapeutic use / Prostate-Specific Antigen / Prostatic
                      Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant: diagnostic imaging /
                      Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant: radiotherapy /
                      Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant: drug therapy /
                      Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography / Lutetium:
                      therapeutic use / Heterocyclic Compounds, 1-Ring:
                      therapeutic use / Treatment Outcome / PET (Other) / PSMA
                      therapy (Other) / PSMA-1007 (Other) / PSMA-11 (Other) /
                      prostate cancer (Other) / Fluorodeoxyglucose F18 (NLM
                      Chemicals) / Radiopharmaceuticals (NLM Chemicals) /
                      Dipeptides (NLM Chemicals) / Prostate-Specific Antigen (NLM
                      Chemicals) / Lutetium (NLM Chemicals) / Heterocyclic
                      Compounds, 1-Ring (NLM Chemicals)},
      cin          = {ED01},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)ED01-20160331},
      pnm          = {899 - ohne Topic (POF4-899)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-899},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:36522186},
      doi          = {10.2967/jnumed.122.264741},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/275761},
}