The reconstruction algorithm used for [68Ga]PSMA-HBED-CC PET/CT reconstruction significantly influences the number of detected lymph node metastases and coeliac ganglia

  • Thomas Krohn
  • Anita Birmes
  • Oliver H. Winz
  • Natascha I. Drude
  • Felix M. Mottaghy
  • Florian F. Behrendt
  • Frederik A. Verburg
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate whether the numbers of lymph node metastases and coeliac ganglia delineated on [68Ga]PSMA-HBED-CC PET/CT scans differ among datasets generated using different reconstruction algorithms.

Methods

Data were constructed using the BLOB-OS-TF, BLOB-OS and 3D-RAMLA algorithms. All reconstructions were assessed by two nuclear medicine physicians for the number of pelvic/paraaortal lymph node metastases as well the number of coeliac ganglia. Standardized uptake values (SUV) were also calculated in different regions.

Results

At least one [68Ga]PSMA-HBED-CC PET/CT-positive pelvic or paraaortal lymph node metastasis was found in 49 and 35 patients using the BLOB-OS-TF algorithm, in 42 and 33 patients using the BLOB-OS algorithm, and in 41 and 31 patients using the 3D-RAMLA algorithm, respectively, and a positive ganglion was found in 92, 59 and 24 of 100 patients using the three algorithms, respectively. Quantitatively, the SUVmean and SUVmax were significantly higher with the BLOB-OS algorithm than with either the BLOB-OS-TF or the 3D-RAMLA algorithm in all measured regions (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). The differences between the SUVs with the BLOB-OS-TF- and 3D-RAMLA algorithms were not significant in the aorta (SUVmean, p = 0.93; SUVmax, p = 0.97) but were significant in all other regions (p < 0.001 in all cases). The SUVmean ganglion/gluteus ratio was significantly higher with the BLOB-OS-TF algorithm than with either the BLOB-OS or the 3D-RAMLA algorithm and was significantly higher with the BLOB-OS than with the 3D-RAMLA algorithm (p < 0.001 in all cases).

Conclusion

The results of [68Ga]PSMA-HBED-CC PET/CT are affected by the reconstruction algorithm used. The highest number of lesions and physiological structures will be visualized using a modern algorithm employing time-of-flight information.

Keywords

Prostate cancer PSMA PET/CT PSMA-HBED-CC Reconstruction algorithm Staging 

References

  1. 1.
    Afshar-Oromieh A, Avtzi E, Giesel FL, Holland-Letz T, Linhart HG, Eder M, et al. The diagnostic value of PET/CT imaging with the (68)Ga-labelled PSMA ligand HBED-CC in the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:197–209.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Afshar-Oromieh A, Zechmann CM, Malcher A, Eder M, Eisenhut M, Linhart HG, et al. Comparison of PET imaging with a (68)Ga-labelled PSMA ligand and (18)F-choline-based PET/CT for the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:11–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Afshar-Oromieh A, Malcher A, Eder M, Eisenhut M, Linhart HG, Hadaschik BA, et al. PET imaging with a [68Ga]gallium-labelled PSMA ligand for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: biodistribution in humans and first evaluation of tumour lesions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:486–495.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Afshar-Oromieh A, Haberkorn U, Eder M, Eisenhut M, Zechmann CM. [68Ga]Gallium-labelled PSMA ligand as superior PET tracer for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: comparison with 18F-FECH. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1085–1086.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ceci F, Uprimny C, Nilica B, Geraldo L, Kendler D, Kroiss A, et al. (68)Ga-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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dietlein M, Kobe C, Kuhnert G, Stockter S, Fischer T, Schomacker K, et al. Comparison of [(18)F]DCFPyL and [(68)Ga]Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC for PSMA-PET imaging in patients with relapsed prostate cancer. Mol Imaging Biol. 2015;17:575–584.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eder M, Neels O, Muller M, Bauder-Wust U, Remde Y, Schafer M, et al. Novel preclinical and radiopharmaceutical aspects of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC: a new PET tracer for imaging of prostate cancer. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2014;7:779–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kabasakal L, Demirci E, Ocak M, Akyel R, Nematyazar J, Aygun A, et al. Evaluation of PSMA PET/CT imaging using a 68Ga-HBED-CC ligand in patients with prostate cancer and the value of early pelvic imaging. Nucl Med Commun. 2015;36:582–587.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maurer T, Gschwend JE, Rauscher I, Souvatzoglou M, Haller B, Weirich G, et al. Diagnostic efficacy of gallium-PSMA-PET compared to conventional imaging in lymph node staging of 130 consecutive patients with intermediate to high-risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2016;195:1436–1443.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mottaghy FM, Behrendt FF, Verburg FA. (68)Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC PET/CT: where molecular imaging has an edge over morphological imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:394–396.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sachpekidis C, Eder M, Kopka K, Mier W, Hadaschik BA, Haberkorn U, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA-11 dynamic PET/CT imaging in biochemical relapse of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:1288–1299.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Verburg FA, Pfister D, Heidenreich A, Vogg A, Drude NI, Voo S, et al. Extent of disease in recurrent prostate cancer determined by [(68)Ga]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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Krohn T, Verburg FA, Pufe T, Neuhuber W, Vogg A, Heinzel A, et al. [(68)Ga]PSMA-HBED uptake mimicking lymph node metastasis in coeliac ganglia: an important pitfall in clinical practice. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:210–214.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Verburg FA, Krohn T, Heinzel A, Mottaghy FM, Behrendt FF. First evidence of PSMA expression in differentiated thyroid cancer using [(68)Ga]PSMA-HBED-CC PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:1622–1623.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sasikumar A, Joy A, Nanabala R, Pillai MR, Thomas B, Vikraman KR. (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT imaging in primary hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:795–796.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Demirci E, Ocak M, Kabasakal L, Decristoforo C, Talat Z, Halac M, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT imaging of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:1461–1462.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Giesel FL, Fiedler H, Stefanova M, Sterzing F, Rius M, Kopka K, et al. PSMA PET/CT with Glu-urea-Lys-(Ahx)-[Ga(HBED-CC)] versus 3D CT volumetric lymph node assessment in recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:1794–1800.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zielinski A, Behrendt FF, Verburg FA, Mottaghy FM, Krohn T. Phantom studies and clinical application of high resolution, image reconstruction using (18)F-fluoromethylcholine PET/CT for prostate cancer. Hell J Nucl Med. 2014;17:194–199.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Karp JS, Surti S, Daube-Witherspoon ME, Muehllehner G. Benefit of time-of-flight in PET: experimental and clinical results. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:462–470.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Surti S, Kuhn A, Werner ME, Perkins AE, Kolthammer J, Karp JS. Performance of Philips Gemini TF PET/CT scanner with special consideration for its time-of-flight imaging capabilities. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:471–480.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pfister D, Porres D, Heidenreich A, Heidegger I, Knuechel R, Steib F, et al. Detection of recurrent prostate cancer lesions before salvage lymphadenectomy is more accurate with (68)Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC than with (18)F-fluoroethylcholine PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:1410–1417.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Krohn
    • 1
    • 5
  • Anita Birmes
    • 1
  • Oliver H. Winz
    • 1
  • Natascha I. Drude
    • 1
  • Felix M. Mottaghy
    • 1
    • 2
  • Florian F. Behrendt
    • 1
    • 3
  • Frederik A. Verburg
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineRWTH University Hospital AachenAachenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear MedicineMaastricht UMC+MaastrichtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Radiology Institute “Aachen Land”WürselenGermany
  4. 4.Department of Nuclear MedicineUniversity Hospital Giessen and MarburgMarburgGermany
  5. 5.Department of Nuclear MedicineUlm UniversityUlmGermany

Personalised recommendations