{"title":"Comparing the Diagnostic Performance of [18F]PSMA-1007 With [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 in PET/CT Imaging and Staging of Recurrent Prostate Cancer","authors":"Negar Abdi, Miad Alsulami, Hamid Ghaznavi","doi":"10.1002/med4.70006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>PET/CT has become the reference standard imaging modality for diagnosing prostate cancer because of its ability to target prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), a protein specific to prostate cells. [<sup>68</sup>Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 was a major advance, but limitations such as a short lifespan and image blurring led to the introduction of [<sup>18</sup>F]PSMA-1007, which offers advantages such as a longer lifespan and clearer images. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of [<sup>18</sup>F]PSMA-1007 and [<sup>68</sup>Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 in the detection and staging of recurrent prostate cancer because there is currently insufficient evidence to conclude that one PSMA-radiotracer is better than the other. Both <sup>68</sup>Ga and <sup>18</sup>F-labeled PSMA-radiotracers have similar detection rates in patients. Therefore, more investigation is required to authoritatively conclude which radiotracer results in optimal performance for diagnosing prostate cancer lesions on PET/CT. In this narrative review, we focus on comparing the effectiveness of [<sup>18</sup>F]PSMA-1007 with that of [<sup>68</sup>Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 in the detection of recurrent prostate cancer and determination of its stage. We found that [<sup>18</sup>F]PSMA-1007 and [<sup>68</sup>Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 showed similar diagnostic performance, with [<sup>18</sup>F]PSMA-1007 having slightly higher sensitivity for primary and metastatic recurrent prostate cancer. However, a lack of statistical significance in the differences between the two radiotracers indicates comparable diagnostic accuracy, enabling their interchangeable use based on availability and cost efficiency.</p>","PeriodicalId":100913,"journal":{"name":"Medicine Advances","volume":"3 1","pages":"9-19"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/med4.70006","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine Advances","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/med4.70006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
PET/CT has become the reference standard imaging modality for diagnosing prostate cancer because of its ability to target prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), a protein specific to prostate cells. [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 was a major advance, but limitations such as a short lifespan and image blurring led to the introduction of [18F]PSMA-1007, which offers advantages such as a longer lifespan and clearer images. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of [18F]PSMA-1007 and [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 in the detection and staging of recurrent prostate cancer because there is currently insufficient evidence to conclude that one PSMA-radiotracer is better than the other. Both 68Ga and 18F-labeled PSMA-radiotracers have similar detection rates in patients. Therefore, more investigation is required to authoritatively conclude which radiotracer results in optimal performance for diagnosing prostate cancer lesions on PET/CT. In this narrative review, we focus on comparing the effectiveness of [18F]PSMA-1007 with that of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 in the detection of recurrent prostate cancer and determination of its stage. We found that [18F]PSMA-1007 and [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 showed similar diagnostic performance, with [18F]PSMA-1007 having slightly higher sensitivity for primary and metastatic recurrent prostate cancer. However, a lack of statistical significance in the differences between the two radiotracers indicates comparable diagnostic accuracy, enabling their interchangeable use based on availability and cost efficiency.