Effect of data-driven gating on the quantification of prostate cancer metastases in 68Ga-PSMA- and ¹⁸F-DCFPyL-PSMA PET/CT.

IF 1.7
Adam Farag, Cornel Felder, Douglas Hussey, Seyed Ali Mirshahvalad, Sara Harsini, Ur Metser, Patrick Veit-Haibach
{"title":"Effect of data-driven gating on the quantification of prostate cancer metastases in <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA- and ¹⁸F-DCFPyL-PSMA PET/CT.","authors":"Adam Farag, Cornel Felder, Douglas Hussey, Seyed Ali Mirshahvalad, Sara Harsini, Ur Metser, Patrick Veit-Haibach","doi":"10.1186/s41824-026-00328-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>PSMA PET/CT using <sup>18</sup>F‑DCFPyL and <sup>68</sup>Ga‑labelled tracers is central to prostate cancer staging, but <sup>68</sup>Ga‑PSMA may show reduced sensitivity and quantitative accuracy, partly due to respiratory motion and lower spatial resolution. Device-based motion‑correction methods have limitations. Data‑driven gating (DDG) offers a hardware‑free alternative, though its impact on PSMA PET, especially <sup>68</sup>Ga‑PSMA has not been systematically evaluated. To evaluate the quantitative and qualitative performance of the DDG motion-correction method in <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA and <sup>18</sup>F-DCFPyL-PSMA PET/CT, focusing on metastatic lymph node, lung, and bone lesions, and to assess its robustness across tracers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study included patients with biopsy‑proven prostate cancer who underwent <sup>68</sup>Ga‑PSMA or <sup>18</sup>F‑DCFPyL PSMA PET/CT for primary staging or biochemical recurrence and had metastatic disease. Motion correction was applied using the OncoFreeze AI™ data‑driven gating (OFAI‑DDG) method. Metastatic lesions were segmented semi‑automatically, and SUV metrics, image noise, and contrast‑to‑noise ratio were quantified by anatomical site in both OFAI-DDG and static images. Qualitative image quality was independently scored by two experienced readers. Statistical analyses included non‑parametric tests, Bland-Altman agreement, regression analyses, tracer comparison, and inter‑reader reliability assessment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After exclusions, 23 <sup>68</sup>Ga‑PSMA and 40 <sup>18</sup>F‑PSMA patients were analyzed, yielding 133 and 192 metastatic lesions, respectively. OFAI‑DDG reconstruction significantly increased SUV<sub>mean</sub> and SUV<sub>max</sub> compared with static imaging for both tracers across bone, lymph node, and lung lesions (p < 0.0001), with the largest gains in lung lesions. CNR improved for most lesion types, and image noise was significantly reduced. Qualitative analysis showed better image quality, sharpness, and noise with OFAI‑DDG, with high inter‑reader agreement. OFAI‑DDG performance was robust across tracers and largely independent of lesion location.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrates that OFAI‑DDG significantly improves PSMA PET/CT image quality and quantitative accuracy compared with standard static imaging. The improvements were observed for both <sup>68</sup>Ga‑PSMA and <sup>18</sup>F‑PSMA tracers, indicating tracer‑independent robustness. The OFAI‑DDG simplified the workflow and reduced time used for patient set-up, while enhancing lesion visualization and quantitative reliability without altering lesion detection, supporting its clinical value for metastatic prostate cancer imaging.</p>","PeriodicalId":519909,"journal":{"name":"EJNMMI reports","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EJNMMI reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41824-026-00328-1","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

Background: PSMA PET/CT using 18F‑DCFPyL and 68Ga‑labelled tracers is central to prostate cancer staging, but 68Ga‑PSMA may show reduced sensitivity and quantitative accuracy, partly due to respiratory motion and lower spatial resolution. Device-based motion‑correction methods have limitations. Data‑driven gating (DDG) offers a hardware‑free alternative, though its impact on PSMA PET, especially 68Ga‑PSMA has not been systematically evaluated. To evaluate the quantitative and qualitative performance of the DDG motion-correction method in 68Ga-PSMA and 18F-DCFPyL-PSMA PET/CT, focusing on metastatic lymph node, lung, and bone lesions, and to assess its robustness across tracers.

Methods: This retrospective study included patients with biopsy‑proven prostate cancer who underwent 68Ga‑PSMA or 18F‑DCFPyL PSMA PET/CT for primary staging or biochemical recurrence and had metastatic disease. Motion correction was applied using the OncoFreeze AI™ data‑driven gating (OFAI‑DDG) method. Metastatic lesions were segmented semi‑automatically, and SUV metrics, image noise, and contrast‑to‑noise ratio were quantified by anatomical site in both OFAI-DDG and static images. Qualitative image quality was independently scored by two experienced readers. Statistical analyses included non‑parametric tests, Bland-Altman agreement, regression analyses, tracer comparison, and inter‑reader reliability assessment.

Results: After exclusions, 23 68Ga‑PSMA and 40 18F‑PSMA patients were analyzed, yielding 133 and 192 metastatic lesions, respectively. OFAI‑DDG reconstruction significantly increased SUVmean and SUVmax compared with static imaging for both tracers across bone, lymph node, and lung lesions (p < 0.0001), with the largest gains in lung lesions. CNR improved for most lesion types, and image noise was significantly reduced. Qualitative analysis showed better image quality, sharpness, and noise with OFAI‑DDG, with high inter‑reader agreement. OFAI‑DDG performance was robust across tracers and largely independent of lesion location.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates that OFAI‑DDG significantly improves PSMA PET/CT image quality and quantitative accuracy compared with standard static imaging. The improvements were observed for both 68Ga‑PSMA and 18F‑PSMA tracers, indicating tracer‑independent robustness. The OFAI‑DDG simplified the workflow and reduced time used for patient set-up, while enhancing lesion visualization and quantitative reliability without altering lesion detection, supporting its clinical value for metastatic prostate cancer imaging.

数据驱动门控对68Ga-PSMA-和¹⁸F-DCFPyL-PSMA PET/CT中前列腺癌转移定量的影响。
背景:使用18F - DCFPyL和68Ga标记示踪剂的PSMA PET/CT对前列腺癌分期至关重要,但68Ga - PSMA可能会降低灵敏度和定量准确性,部分原因是呼吸运动和较低的空间分辨率。基于设备的运动校正方法有局限性。数据驱动门控(DDG)提供了一种无硬件的替代方案,尽管它对PSMA PET,特别是68Ga - PSMA的影响尚未得到系统评估。评估DDG运动校正方法在68Ga-PSMA和18F-DCFPyL-PSMA PET/CT上的定量和定性性能,重点关注转移性淋巴结、肺和骨病变,并评估其跨示踪剂的稳健性。方法:本回顾性研究纳入活检证实的前列腺癌患者,这些患者接受68Ga - PSMA或18F - DCFPyL PSMA PET/CT检查原发性分期或生化复发,并有转移性疾病。使用OncoFreeze AI™数据驱动门控(OFAI - DDG)方法进行运动校正。转移性病变进行半自动分割,并在OFAI-DDG和静态图像中按解剖部位量化SUV指标、图像噪声和对比噪声比。定性图像质量由两位经验丰富的读者独立评分。统计分析包括非参数检验、Bland-Altman协议、回归分析、示踪比较和读者间可靠性评估。结果:排除后,分析了23例68Ga - PSMA和40例18F - PSMA患者,分别产生133例和192例转移灶。与静态成像相比,OFAI - DDG重建可显著提高两种示踪剂跨骨、淋巴结和肺部病变的SUVmean和SUVmax (p)。结论:本研究表明,与标准静态成像相比,OFAI - DDG可显著提高PSMA PET/CT图像质量和定量准确性。68Ga - PSMA和18F - PSMA示踪剂均有改善,表明示踪剂不依赖于鲁棒性。OFAI - DDG简化了工作流程,减少了患者设置的时间,同时在不改变病变检测的情况下增强了病变可视化和定量可靠性,支持其在转移性前列腺癌成像中的临床价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书