Review of commonly used prostate specific PET tracers used in prostate cancer imaging in current clinical practice.
| Publication Type | Review |
| Authors | Niaz M, Sun M, Skafida M, Niaz M, Ivanidze J, Osborne J, O'Dwyer E |
| Journal | Clin Imaging |
| Volume | 79 |
| Pagination | 278-288 |
| Date Published | 06/24/2021 |
| ISSN | 1873-4499 |
| Keywords | Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography, Prostatic Neoplasms |
| Abstract | 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) underperforms in detecting prostate cancer (PCa) due to inherent characteristics of primary and metastatic tumors, including relatively low rate of glucose utilization. Consequently, alternate PCa PET imaging agents targeting other aspects of PCa cell biology have been developed for clinical practice. The most common dedicated PET imaging tracers include 68Ga/18F prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), 11C-Choline, and 18F-fluciclovine (Axumin™). This review will describe how these agents target specific inherent characteristics of PCa and explore the current literature for these agents for both primary and recurrent PCa, comparing the advantages and limitations of each tracer. Both 11C-Choline and 18F-Fluciclovine PET have been shown to detect nodal and osseous disease at higher rates compared to FDG-PET but offer no additional benefit in detecting prostate disease, especially in primary staging. As a result, PSMA PET, specifically 68Ga-PSMA-11, has emerged as a key imaging option for both primary and recurrent cancer. PSMA PET may be more sensitive than MRI at the local level and more sensitive than 11C-Choline and 18F-Fluciclovine PET for distant disease. Furthermore, compared to 11C-Choline and 18F-Fluciclovine PET, 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET has higher detection rates at low PSA levels (<2 ng/dL). With improved delineation of disease, PSMA imaging has influenced treatment planning; radiation fields can be narrowed, and patients with isolated or oligo-metastatic disease can be spared systemic therapy. The retrospective nature of many of the studies describing these PCa imaging modalities complicates their assessment and comparison. |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.clinimag.2021.06.006 |
| PubMed ID | 34182326 |