{"title":"68Ga前列腺特异性膜抗原-11 (HBED-CC) PET/MRI用于前列腺癌生化复发的前列腺复发报告成像(PI-RR)系统的验证:一项初步研究。","authors":"Lebriz Uslu-Beşli, Baris Turkbey, Bariş Bakir, Selahattin Durmaz, Çetin Demirdağ, Haluk Burçak Sayman","doi":"10.1097/MNM.0000000000002016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the diagnostic performance of Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting (PI-RR) system using 68 Ga prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-11 (HBED-CC) PET/MRI in prostate cancer (PCa) patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PET/MRI data of 31 PCa patients [17 with radical prostatectomy (RP) and 14 with radiotherapy (RT)] with BCR were retrospectively analyzed. All patients underwent PSMA PET/MRI and multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI). Images were evaluated using PI-RR system for mpMRI and the European Association of Nuclear Medicine standardized reporting guidelines (E-PSMA) for PET, with PI-RR and E-PSMA scores dichotomized as ≤2 negative and ≥3 positive for recurrence. Diagnostic performances were assessed using expert-based ground truth establishment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 64.7%, 85.7%, and 74.2%, respectively, for PET and 70.6%, 100%, and 83.9%, respectively, for PI-RR. While PI-RR did not reveal any false positive lesions, five patients with false negative PI-RR results were also negative with PET. In patients with RP, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 44.4%, 100%, and 70.6%, respectively, for PET and 55.6%, 100%, and 76.5%, respectively, for PI-RR. For patients with RT, these values were 87.5%, 66.7%, and 78.6%, respectively, for PET and 87.5%, 100%, and 92.9%, respectively, for PI-RR. There was no significant performance difference between PET or PI-RR in all patients ( P = 0.564), patients with RP ( P = 0.317), or RT ( P = 0.157).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>68 Ga PSMA PET evaluation with E-PSMA and mpMRI interpretation with PI-RR have similar diagnostic performance for detection of local recurrence after RP or RT in PCa.</p>","PeriodicalId":19708,"journal":{"name":"Nuclear Medicine Communications","volume":" ","pages":"895-904"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of the Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting (PI-RR) System using 68 Ga prostate-specific membrane antigen-11 (HBED-CC) PET/MRI in biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer: a pilot study.\",\"authors\":\"Lebriz Uslu-Beşli, Baris Turkbey, Bariş Bakir, Selahattin Durmaz, Çetin Demirdağ, Haluk Burçak Sayman\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MNM.0000000000002016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the diagnostic performance of Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting (PI-RR) system using 68 Ga prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-11 (HBED-CC) PET/MRI in prostate cancer (PCa) patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PET/MRI data of 31 PCa patients [17 with radical prostatectomy (RP) and 14 with radiotherapy (RT)] with BCR were retrospectively analyzed. All patients underwent PSMA PET/MRI and multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI). Images were evaluated using PI-RR system for mpMRI and the European Association of Nuclear Medicine standardized reporting guidelines (E-PSMA) for PET, with PI-RR and E-PSMA scores dichotomized as ≤2 negative and ≥3 positive for recurrence. Diagnostic performances were assessed using expert-based ground truth establishment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 64.7%, 85.7%, and 74.2%, respectively, for PET and 70.6%, 100%, and 83.9%, respectively, for PI-RR. While PI-RR did not reveal any false positive lesions, five patients with false negative PI-RR results were also negative with PET. In patients with RP, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 44.4%, 100%, and 70.6%, respectively, for PET and 55.6%, 100%, and 76.5%, respectively, for PI-RR. For patients with RT, these values were 87.5%, 66.7%, and 78.6%, respectively, for PET and 87.5%, 100%, and 92.9%, respectively, for PI-RR. There was no significant performance difference between PET or PI-RR in all patients ( P = 0.564), patients with RP ( P = 0.317), or RT ( P = 0.157).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>68 Ga PSMA PET evaluation with E-PSMA and mpMRI interpretation with PI-RR have similar diagnostic performance for detection of local recurrence after RP or RT in PCa.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19708,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nuclear Medicine Communications\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"895-904\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nuclear Medicine Communications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0000000000002016\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/6/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nuclear Medicine Communications","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0000000000002016","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Validation of the Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting (PI-RR) System using 68 Ga prostate-specific membrane antigen-11 (HBED-CC) PET/MRI in biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer: a pilot study.
Objective: To assess the diagnostic performance of Prostate Imaging for Recurrence Reporting (PI-RR) system using 68 Ga prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-11 (HBED-CC) PET/MRI in prostate cancer (PCa) patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR).
Methods: PET/MRI data of 31 PCa patients [17 with radical prostatectomy (RP) and 14 with radiotherapy (RT)] with BCR were retrospectively analyzed. All patients underwent PSMA PET/MRI and multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI). Images were evaluated using PI-RR system for mpMRI and the European Association of Nuclear Medicine standardized reporting guidelines (E-PSMA) for PET, with PI-RR and E-PSMA scores dichotomized as ≤2 negative and ≥3 positive for recurrence. Diagnostic performances were assessed using expert-based ground truth establishment.
Results: Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 64.7%, 85.7%, and 74.2%, respectively, for PET and 70.6%, 100%, and 83.9%, respectively, for PI-RR. While PI-RR did not reveal any false positive lesions, five patients with false negative PI-RR results were also negative with PET. In patients with RP, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 44.4%, 100%, and 70.6%, respectively, for PET and 55.6%, 100%, and 76.5%, respectively, for PI-RR. For patients with RT, these values were 87.5%, 66.7%, and 78.6%, respectively, for PET and 87.5%, 100%, and 92.9%, respectively, for PI-RR. There was no significant performance difference between PET or PI-RR in all patients ( P = 0.564), patients with RP ( P = 0.317), or RT ( P = 0.157).
Conclusion: 68 Ga PSMA PET evaluation with E-PSMA and mpMRI interpretation with PI-RR have similar diagnostic performance for detection of local recurrence after RP or RT in PCa.
期刊介绍:
Nuclear Medicine Communications, the official journal of the British Nuclear Medicine Society, is a rapid communications journal covering nuclear medicine and molecular imaging with radionuclides, and the basic supporting sciences. As well as clinical research and commentary, manuscripts describing research on preclinical and basic sciences (radiochemistry, radiopharmacy, radiobiology, radiopharmacology, medical physics, computing and engineering, and technical and nursing professions involved in delivering nuclear medicine services) are welcomed, as the journal is intended to be of interest internationally to all members of the many medical and non-medical disciplines involved in nuclear medicine. In addition to papers reporting original studies, frankly written editorials and topical reviews are a regular feature of the journal.