Purpose 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT is commonly performed at 1 h post injection (p.i.). However, various publications have demonstrated that most prostate cancer (PC) lesions exhibit higher contrast at later imaging. The aim of this study was to compare the Bcommon^protocol of 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT with a modified protocol. Methods In 2017, we used the following scanning protocol for 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in patients with recurrent PC: acquisition at 1 h p.i. without further preparations. From 2018, all scans were conducted at 1.5 h p.i. In addition, patients were orally hydrated with 1 L of water 0.5 h p.i. and were injected with 20 mg of furosemide 1 h p.i. Both protocols including 112 patients (2017) and 156 (modified protocol in 2018) were retrospectively compared. Rates of pathologic scans, maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax), and tumor contrast (ratio lesion-SUVmax/background-SUVmean) as well as average standardized uptake values (SUVmean) of urinary bladder were analyzed. Results Both tumor contrast and tracer uptake were significantly (p < 0.001) higher in the novel protocol. Although statistically not significant, the rates of pathologic scans were also higher in the modified protocol: 76.3% vs. 68.8% for all PSA values including 38.9% vs. 25.0% for PSA < 0.5 ng/ml and 60.0% vs. 56.7% for PSA > 0.5-≤ 2.0 ng/ml. Average SUVmean of the urinary bladder was significantly (p < 0.001) lower with the modified protocol. Conclusions The modified protocol, which includes a combination of delayed image acquisition at 1.5 h p.i., hydration, and furosemide resulted in higher tumor contrast and seems to have the potential to increase the rates of pathological scans, especially at low PSA levels.

No abstract

Objective To investigate the impact of digital PET/CT on diagnostic certainty, patient-based sensitivity and interrater reliability. Methods Four physicians retrospectively evaluated two matched cohorts of patients undergoing [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT on a digital (dPET/CT n = 65) or an analogue scanner (aPET/CT n = 65) for recurrent prostate cancer between 11/2018 and 03/2019. The number of equivocal and pathological lesions as well as the frequency of discrepant findings and the interrater reliability for the two scanners were compared. Results dPET/CT detected more lesions than aPET/CT (p < 0.001). A higher number of pathological scans were observed for dPET/CT (83% vs. 57%, p < 0.001). The true-positive rate at follow-up was 100% for dPET/CT compared to 84% for aPET/CT (p < 0.001). The proportion of lesions rated as non-pathological as a total of all PSMA-avid lesions detected for dPET/CT was comparable to aPET/CT (61.8% vs. 57.0%, p = 0.99). Neither a higher rate of diagnostically uncertain lesions (11.5% dPET/CT vs. 13.7% aPET/CT, p = 0.95) nor discrepant scans (where one or more readers differed in opinion as to whether the scan is pathological) were observed (18% dPET/CT vs. 17% aPET/CT, p = 0.76). Interrater reliability for pathological lesions was excellent for both scanner types (Cronbach’s α = 0.923 dPET/CT; α = 0.948 aPET/CT) and interrater agreement was substantial for dPET/CT (Krippendorf’s α = 0.701) and almost perfect in aPET/CT (α = 0.802). Conclusions A higher detection rate for pathological lesions for dPET/CT compared with aPET/CT in multiple readers was observed. This improved sensitivity was coupled with an improved true-positive rate and was not associated with increased diagnostic uncertainty, rate of non-specific lesions, or reduced interrater reliability. Key Points • New generation digital scanners detect more cancer lesions in men with prostate cancer. • When using digital scanners, the doctors are able to diagnose prostate cancer lesions with better certainty • When using digital scanners, the doctors do not disagree with each other more than with other scanner types.