Restaging the Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer with [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT: Diagnostic Performance and Impact on Patient Disease Management
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Population
2.2. [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT Imaging Procedure
2.3. [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT Image Analysis
2.4. Follow-Up and Evaluation of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT Impact on Patient Disease Management
2.5. Standard of Truth
- True-positive if at least 3 criteria were met: the imaging was positive for a location; the patient received targeted treatment for imaging findings; the PSA decreased in response to the targeted treatment; the number or the size of the lesions decreased on follow-up imaging;
- True-negative if at least 3 criteria were met: the imaging was negative for a location; the patient received targeted treatment on another location; the PSA decreased in response to the targeted treatment; no evolution on follow-up imaging;
- False-positive if at least 3 criteria were met: the imaging was positive for a location; the location was atypical for a PCa metastasis; the patient received targeted treatment for atypical imaging findings leading to an absence of PSA decrease in response to treatment; the patient received targeted treatment on another location leading to a PSA decrease in response to treatment; persistence and stability of the abnormality on follow-up imaging;
- False-negative if at least 3 criteria were met: the imaging was negative for a location; the patient received targeted treatment on that location leading (as PCa patients presenting with first BCR after prostatectomy and in whom there is no evidence of distant metastatic disease can be offered salvage radiation therapy according to guidelines [20]); PSA decrease in response to treatment; appearance of a typical abnormality in that location on follow-up imaging.
2.6. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. BCR Patient Characteristics
3.2. [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT Positivity Rates and Performance
3.3. Impact of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT on BCR Patient Management and Therapy Efficacy Prediction
3.4. Agreement between Routine Unmasked and Retrospective Masked [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT Readings
4. Discussion
4.1. [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT Performances
4.2. [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT’s Impact on PCa Management and Therapy Efficacy Prediction
4.3. [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT Reading Agreement
4.4. Limitations
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Siegel, R.L.; Miller, K.D.; Jemal, A. Cancer Statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2020, 70, 7–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zietman, A.L.; DeSilvio, M.L.; Slater, J.D.; Rossi, C.J.; Miller, D.W.; Adams, J.A.; Shipley, W.U. Comparison of Conventional-Dose vs High-Dose Conformal Radiation Therapy in Clinically Localized Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate: A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA 2005, 294, 1233–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Remmers, S.; Verbeek, J.F.M.; Nieboer, D.; van der Kwast, T.; Roobol, M.J. Predicting Biochemical Recurrence and Prostate Cancer-Specific Mortality after Radical Prostatectomy: Comparison of Six Prediction Models in a Cohort of Patients with Screening- and Clinically Detected Prostate Cancer. BJU Int. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cornford, P.; Bellmunt, J.; Bolla, M.; Briers, E.; Santis, M.D.; Gross, T.; Henry, A.M.; Joniau, S.; Lam, T.B.; Mason, M.D.; et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part II: Treatment of Relapsing, Metastatic, and Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer. Eur. Urol. 2017, 71, 630–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanda, M.G.; Chen, R.C.; Crispino, T.; Freedland, S.; Greene, K.; Klotz, L.H.; Makarov, D.V.; Reston, J.; Rodrigues, G.; Sandler, H.M.; et al. Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Available online: https://www.astro.org/Patient-Care-and-Research/Clinical-Practice-Statements/ASTRO-39;s-evidence-based-guideline-on-clinically (accessed on 29 March 2021).
- Artibani, W.; Porcaro, A.B.; De Marco, V.; Cerruto, M.A.; Siracusano, S. Management of Biochemical Recurrence after Primary Curative Treatment for Prostate Cancer: A Review. Urol. Int. 2018, 100, 251–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ost, P.; Jereczek-Fossa, B.A.; As, N.V.; Zilli, T.; Muacevic, A.; Olivier, K.; Henderson, D.; Casamassima, F.; Orecchia, R.; Surgo, A.; et al. Progression-Free Survival Following Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer Treatment-Naive Recurrence: A Multi-Institutional Analysis. Eur. Urol. 2016, 69, 9–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kane, C.J.; Amling, C.L.; Johnstone, P.A.S.; Pak, N.; Lance, R.S.; Thrasher, J.B.; Foley, J.P.; Riffenburgh, R.H.; Moul, J.W. Limited Value of Bone Scintigraphy and Computed Tomography in Assessing Biochemical Failure after Radical Prostatectomy. Urology 2003, 61, 607–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graute, V.; Jansen, N.; Ubleis, C.; Seitz, M.; Hartenbach, M.; Scherr, M.K.; Thieme, S.; Cumming, P.; Klanke, K.; Tiling, R.; et al. Relationship between PSA Kinetics and [18F]Fluorocholine PET/CT Detection Rates of Recurrence in Patients with Prostate Cancer after Total Prostatectomy. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2012, 39, 271–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Emmett, L.; Willowson, K.; Violet, J.; Shin, J.; Blanksby, A.; Lee, J. Lutetium 177 PSMA Radionuclide Therapy for Men with Prostate Cancer: A Review of the Current Literature and Discussion of Practical Aspects of Therapy. J. Med. Radiat. Sci. 2017, 64, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kasperzyk, J.L.; Finn, S.P.; Flavin, R.; Fiorentino, M.; Lis, R.; Hendrickson, W.K.; Clinton, S.K.; Sesso, H.D.; Giovannucci, E.L.; Stampfer, M.J.; et al. Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Protein Expression in Tumor Tissue and Risk of Lethal Prostate Cancer. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2013, 22, 2354–2363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gauthé, M.; Belissant, O.; Girard, A.; Zhang Yin, J.; Ohnona, J.; Cottereau, A.-S.; Nataf, V.; Balogova, S.; Pontvert, D.; Lebret, T.; et al. TEP/TDM et récidive biologique d’adénocarcinome prostatique: Apport du 68Ga-PSMA-11 lorsque la 18F-fluorocholine n’est pas contributive. Prog. Urol. 2017, 27, 474–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Perera, M.; Papa, N.; Roberts, M.; Williams, M.; Udovicich, C.; Vela, I.; Christidis, D.; Bolton, D.; Hofman, M.S.; Lawrentschuk, N.; et al. Gallium-68 Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography in Advanced Prostate Cancer-Updated Diagnostic Utility, Sensitivity, Specificity, and Distribution of Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen-Avid Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Eur. Urol. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, S.; Woo, S.; Kim, Y.J.; Suh, C.H. Impact of 68Ga-PSMA PET on the Management of Patients with Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Eur. Urol. 2018, 74, 179–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mottet, N.; Bellmunt, J.; Bolla, M.; Briers, E.; Cumberbatch, M.G.; De Santis, M.; Fossati, N.; Gross, T.; Henry, A.M.; Joniau, S.; et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur. Urol. 2017, 71, 618–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lowe, G.; Spottiswoode, B.; Declerck, J.; Sullivan, K.; Sharif, M.S.; Wong, W.-L.; Sanghera, B. Positron Emission Tomography PET/CT Harmonisation Study of Different Clinical PET/CT Scanners Using Commercially Available Software. BJR Open 2020, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rauscher, I.; Maurer, T.; Beer, A.J.; Graner, F.-P.; Haller, B.; Weirich, G.; Doherty, A.; Gschwend, J.E.; Schwaiger, M.; Eiber, M. Value of 68Ga-PSMA HBED-CC PET for the Assessment of Lymph Node Metastases in Prostate Cancer Patients with Biochemical Recurrence: Comparison with Histopathology after Salvage Lymphadenectomy. J. Nucl. Med. 2016, 57, 1713–1719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Foster, C.C.; Weichselbaum, R.R.; Pitroda, S.P. Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer: Reality or Figment of Imagination? Cancer 2019, 125, 340–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scher, H.I.; Eisenberger, M.; D’Amico, A.V.; Halabi, S.; Small, E.J.; Morris, M.; Kattan, M.W.; Roach, M.; Kantoff, P.; Pienta, K.J.; et al. Eligibility and Outcomes Reporting Guidelines for Clinical Trials for Patients in the State of a Rising Prostate-Specific Antigen: Recommendations from the Prostate-Specific Antigen Working Group. J. Clin. Oncol. 2004, 22, 537–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, I.M.; Valicenti, R.; Albertsen, P.C.; Goldenberg, S.L.; Hahn, C.A.; Klein, E.A.; Michalski, J.; Iii, M.R.; Sartor, O.; Wolf, J.S., Jr.; et al. Adjuvant and Salvage Radiotherapy after Prostatectomy: ASTRO/AUA Guideline. J. Urol. 2013, 190, 441–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perera, M.; Papa, N.; Christidis, D.; Wetherell, D.; Hofman, M.S.; Murphy, D.G.; Bolton, D.; Lawrentschuk, N. Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predictors of Positive 68Ga–Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography in Advanced Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Eur. Urol. 2016, 70, 926–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Verburg, F.A.; Pfister, D.; Heidenreich, A.; Vogg, A.; Drude, N.I.; Vöö, S.; Mottaghy, F.M.; Behrendt, F.F. Extent of Disease in Recurrent Prostate Cancer Determined by [68Ga]PSMA-HBED-CC PET/CT in Relation to PSA Levels, PSA Doubling Time and Gleason Score. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2016, 43, 397–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ceci, F.; Uprimny, C.; Nilica, B.; Geraldo, L.; Kendler, D.; Kroiss, A.; Bektic, J.; Horninger, W.; Lukas, P.; Decristoforo, C.; et al. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT for Restaging Recurrent Prostate Cancer: Which Factors Are Associated with PET/CT Detection Rate? Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2015, 42, 1284–1294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Afshar-Oromieh, A.; Holland-Letz, T.; Giesel, F.L.; Kratochwil, C.; Mier, W.; Haufe, S.; Debus, N.; Eder, M.; Eisenhut, M.; Schäfer, M.; et al. Diagnostic Performance of 68Ga-PSMA-11 (HBED-CC) PET/CT in Patients with Recurrent Prostate Cancer: Evaluation in 1007 Patients. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2017, 44, 1258–1268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Uprimny, C.; Kroiss, A.S.; Decristoforo, C.; Fritz, J.; Warwitz, B.; Scarpa, L.; Roig, L.G.; Kendler, D.; von Guggenberg, E.; Bektic, J.; et al. Early Dynamic Imaging in 68Ga- PSMA-11 PET/CT Allows Discrimination of Urinary Bladder Activity and Prostate Cancer Lesions. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2016, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fourquet, A.; Aveline, C.; Cussenot, O.; Créhange, G.; Montravers, F.; Talbot, J.-N.; Gauthé, M. 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in Restaging Castration-Resistant Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: Detection Rate, Impact on Patients’ Disease Management and Adequacy of Impact. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 2104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rowe, S.P.; Pienta, K.J.; Pomper, M.G.; Gorin, M.A. PSMA-RADS Version 1.0: A Step Towards Standardizing the Interpretation and Reporting of PSMA-Targeted PET Imaging Studies. Eur. Urol. 2018, 73, 485–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ceci, F.; Oprea-Lager, D.E.; Emmett, L.; Adam, J.A.; Bomanji, J.; Czernin, J.; Eiber, M.; Haberkorn, U.; Hofman, M.S.; Hope, T.A.; et al. E-PSMA: The EANM Standardized Reporting Guidelines v1.0 for PSMA-PET. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fendler, W.P.; Calais, J.; Allen-Auerbach, M.; Bluemel, C.; Eberhardt, N.; Emmett, L.; Gupta, P.; Hartenbach, M.; Hope, T.A.; Okamoto, S.; et al. 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT Interobserver Agreement for Prostate Cancer Assessments: An International Multicenter Prospective Study. J. Nucl. Med. 2017, 58, 1617–1623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Eiber, M.; Maurer, T.; Souvatzoglou, M.; Beer, A.J.; Ruffani, A.; Haller, B.; Graner, F.-P.; Kübler, H.; Haberhorn, U.; Eisenhut, M.; et al. Evaluation of Hybrid 68Ga-PSMA Ligand PET/CT in 248 Patients with Biochemical Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy. J. Nucl. Med. 2015, 56, 668–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- González-Moreno, S.; González-Bayón, L.; Ortega-Pérez, G.; González-Hernando, C. Imaging of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis. Cancer J. 2009, 15, 184–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chang, M.-C.; Chen, J.-H.; Liang, J.-A.; Huang, W.-S.; Cheng, K.-Y.; Kao, C.-H. PET or PET/CT for Detection of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: A Meta-Analysis. Clin. Nucl. Med. 2013, 38, 623–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bluemel, C.; Linke, F.; Herrmann, K.; Simunovic, I.; Eiber, M.; Kestler, C.; Buck, A.K.; Schirbel, A.; Bley, T.A.; Wester, H.-J.; et al. Impact of 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT on Salvage Radiotherapy Planning in Patients with Prostate Cancer and Persisting PSA Values or Biochemical Relapse after Prostatectomy. EJNMMI Res. 2016, 6, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Grubmüller, B.; Baltzer, P.; D’Andrea, D.; Korn, S.; Haug, A.R.; Hacker, M.; Grubmüller, K.H.; Goldner, G.M.; Wadsak, W.; Pfaff, S.; et al. 68Ga-PSMA 11 Ligand PET Imaging in Patients with Biochemical Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy—Diagnostic Performance and Impact on Therapeutic Decision-Making. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2018, 45, 235–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fendler, W.P.; Eiber, M.; Beheshti, M.; Bomanji, J.; Ceci, F.; Cho, S.; Giesel, F.; Haberkorn, U.; Hope, T.A.; Kopka, K.; et al. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT: Joint EANM and SNMMI Procedure Guideline for Prostate Cancer Imaging: Version 1.0. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2017, 44, 1014–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Afshar-Oromieh, A.; da Cunha, M.L.; Wagner, J.; Haberkorn, U.; Debus, N.; Weber, W.; Eiber, M.; Holland-Letz, T.; Rauscher, I. Performance of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in Patients with Recurrent Prostate Cancer after Prostatectomy—A Multi-Centre Evaluation of 2533 Patients. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Parameter | |
---|---|
n | 294 |
Mean age in years | |
At prostate cancer diagnosis (range) | 61 (42–83) |
The day of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT (range) | 68 (43–88) |
Initial group according to d’Amico classification | |
Low risk | 32 (11%) |
Intermediate risk | 170 (58%) |
High risk | 70 (24%) |
Unknown | 22 (7%) |
International Society of Urological Pathologists (ISUP) 2014 grade group | |
1 | 47 (16%) |
2 | 106 (36%) |
3 | 98 (33%) |
4 | 23 (8%) |
5 | 17 (6%) |
Unknown | 2 (1%) |
Initial treatment | |
Surgery (prostatectomy ± lymph node dissection) | 210 (71.5%) |
Surgery + adjuvant radiation therapy | 42 (14%) |
Definitive radiation therapy ± androgen deprivation therapy | 27 (9%) |
Brachytherapy | 14 (5%) |
High Intensity Focused Ultrasound | 1 (0.5%) |
PSA parameters at [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT (closest assay to the examination) | |
Mean delay between PSA assay and [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in weeks | 10.5 [9.7–11.3] |
Mean serum level in ng/mL in operated patients (n = 252) | 2.97 [1.96–3.98] |
0.20–0.49 | 57 (23%) |
0.50–0.99 | 45 (18%) |
1–1.99 | 59 (23%) |
Greater than 2 | 91 (36%) |
Mean serum level in ng/mL in non-operated patients (n = 42) | 4.96 [3.60–6.31] |
Mean doubling time in months* | 12.9 [11.4–14.7] |
Under 6 | 102 (36%) |
Between 6 and 12 | 80 (28%) |
Above 12 | 103 (36%) |
Mean velocity in ng/mL/year * | 2.95 [2.17–3.74] |
n = 294 | Malignant | Equivocal | Negative | SUVmax [Range] | κ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Overall | |||||
Routine unmasked | 202 (69%) | 35 (12%) | 57 (19%) | ||
Retrospective masked | 202 (69%) | 27 (9%) | 65 (22%) | - | 0.68 |
Prostate/prostatic lodge | |||||
Routine unmasked | 60 (20%) | 18 (6%) | 216 (74%) | ||
Retrospective masked | 60 (20%) | 8 (3%) | 226 (77%) | 5.3 [1.7–20.9] | 0.54 |
Pelvic lymph nodes | |||||
Routine unmasked | 110 (38%) | 6 (2%) | 178 (61%) | ||
Retrospective masked | 111 (38%) | 5 (2%) | 178 (61%) | 5.9 [1.7–58.3] | 0.90 |
Paraaortic lymph nodes | |||||
Routine unmasked | 47 (16%) | 3 (1%) | 244 (83%) | ||
Retrospective masked | 47 (16%) | 2 (1%) | 245 (83%) | 5.5 [1.8–71.7] | 0.84 |
Lymph nodes above the diaphragm | |||||
Routine unmasked | 17 (6%) | 12 (4%) | 265 (90%) | ||
Retrospective masked | 25 (9%) | 7 (2%) | 262 (89%) | 3.9 [2–19.6] | 0.73 |
Bone | |||||
Routine unmasked | 53 (18%) | 14 (5%) | 227 (77%) | ||
Retrospective masked | 57 (19%) | 26 (9%) | 211 (72%) | 3.4 [1.1–38.6] | 0.74 |
Viscera | |||||
Routine unmasked | 18 (6%) | 9 (3%) | 267 (91%) | ||
Retrospective masked | 20 * (7%) | 12 ** (4%) | 262 (89%) | 6.2 [2.2–18.6] | 0.56 |
Se | Sp | Acc | |
---|---|---|---|
Overall (n = 176) | |||
Equivocal positive for malignancy | 73% | 57% | 71% |
Equivocal negative for malignancy | 70% | 70% | 70% |
Prostate/prostatic lodge (n = 121) | |||
Equivocal positive for malignancy | 76% | 91% | 85% |
Equivocal negative for malignancy | 69% | 94% | 87% |
Pelvic lymph nodes (n = 116) | |||
Equivocal positive for malignancy | 90% | 98% | 94% |
Equivocal negative for malignancy | 88% | 100% | 95% |
Paraaortic lymph nodes (n = 103) | |||
Equivocal positive for malignancy | 100% | 99% | 99% |
Equivocal negative for malignancy | 100% | 100% | 100% |
Lymph nodes above the diaphragm (n = 101) | |||
Equivocal positive for malignancy | 78% | 97% | 95% |
Equivocal negative for malignancy | 56% | 98% | 94% |
Bone (n = 109) | |||
Equivocal positive for malignancy | 88% | 92% | 91% |
Equivocal negative for malignancy | 88% | 95% | 94% |
Viscera (n = 101) | |||
Equivocal positive for malignancy | 78% | 97% | 95% |
Equivocal negative for malignancy | 56% | 98% | 94% |
Overall Management | Scheduled (n = 278) | ||||
Undecided n = 82 | Treatment with Curative Intent n = 50 | ADT n = 23 | Surveillance n = 123 | ||
Indicated after [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT | Treatment with curative intent n = 140 | 48 + 3 # | 18 + 19 * | 4 | 45 + 3 |
ADT n = 68 | 15 + 3 ## | 11 + 1 | 1 + 17 ** | 18 + 2 | |
Surveillance n = 70 | 13 | 1 | 1 | 2 + 53 *** | |
Surgical Patients Management | Scheduled (n = 240) | ||||
Undecided n = 71 | Treatment with Curative Intent n = 48 | ADT n = 18 | Surveillance n = 103 | ||
Indicated after [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT | Treatment with curative intent n = 127 | 41 + 3 | 18 + 19 | 3 | 40 + 3 |
ADT n = 57 | 14 + 3 | 10 + 1 | 1 + 14 | 13 + 1 | |
Surveillance n = 56 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 46 | |
Non-Operated Patients Management | Scheduled (n = 38) | ||||
Undecided n = 11 | Treatment with Curative Intent n = 2 | ADT n = 5 | Surveillance n = 20 | ||
Indicated after [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT | Treatment with curative intent n = 13 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
ADT n = 11 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 + 1 | |
Surveillance n = 14 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 + 7 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Fourquet, A.; Lahmi, L.; Rusu, T.; Belkacemi, Y.; Créhange, G.; de la Taille, A.; Fournier, G.; Cussenot, O.; Gauthé, M. Restaging the Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer with [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT: Diagnostic Performance and Impact on Patient Disease Management. Cancers 2021, 13, 1594. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13071594
Fourquet A, Lahmi L, Rusu T, Belkacemi Y, Créhange G, de la Taille A, Fournier G, Cussenot O, Gauthé M. Restaging the Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer with [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT: Diagnostic Performance and Impact on Patient Disease Management. Cancers. 2021; 13(7):1594. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13071594
Chicago/Turabian StyleFourquet, Aloÿse, Lucien Lahmi, Timofei Rusu, Yazid Belkacemi, Gilles Créhange, Alexandre de la Taille, Georges Fournier, Olivier Cussenot, and Mathieu Gauthé. 2021. "Restaging the Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer with [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT: Diagnostic Performance and Impact on Patient Disease Management" Cancers 13, no. 7: 1594. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13071594
APA StyleFourquet, A., Lahmi, L., Rusu, T., Belkacemi, Y., Créhange, G., de la Taille, A., Fournier, G., Cussenot, O., & Gauthé, M. (2021). Restaging the Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer with [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT: Diagnostic Performance and Impact on Patient Disease Management. Cancers, 13(7), 1594. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13071594