Superiority of long axial field-of-view <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET over short axial field-of-view PET in prostate cancer: a head-to-head comparison.
prospective_cohort · Level II
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 41014335.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1007/s00259-025-07546-y.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Previous studies have shown that long axial field-of-view (LAFOV) <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT can significantly improve the detection rate compared to short axial field-of-view (SAFOV) <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in prostate cancer. However, the diagnostic efficiency between the two scans was compared in different cohorts, not directly within the same patients. Whether LAFOV <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET could improve image quality, enhance lesion quantification, and impact patient treatment decisions in the same patients remains unclear. To address this research gap, we performed a direct comparison of LAFOV and SAFOV <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET in the same cohort of prostate cancer patients to evaluate whether LAFOV <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET could enhance lesion identification and modify clinical management compared to SAFOV <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET. Thirty-four patients with prostate cancer undergoing routine <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT were included and underwent a same-day dual-scanning protocol. Half of the patients first underwent a clinically routine SAFOV PET scan using continuous bed motion, followed immediately by LAFOV PET (5-minute acquisition in list mode); the other half underwent scanning in the reverse order. The image quality of LAFOV and SAFOV <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET was compared using subjective scoring and objective parameters. Objective parameters, including maximum and mean standardized uptake values (SUVmax and SUVmean), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and tumor-to-background ratio (TBR), were measured and compared. LAFOV <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET exhibited superior image quality compared to SAFOV PET based on both subjective and objective parameters. LAFOV <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET had better image quality and higher lesion SUVmax, SNR, and TBR compared to SAFOV PET. In 17.65% of patients, LAFOV <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET detected additional lesions that were unidentified on SAFOV <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET. Compared to SAFOV <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET, LAFOV <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET detected additional lesions in 33.33% of patients with biochemical recurrence and 9.09% of patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, leading to significant changes in clinical management. In this head-to-head comparison, LAFOV <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET demonstrated superior image quality, enhanced lesion detection, and a significant impact on clinical management for both biochemical recurrence and newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients compared to SAFOV <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET. These findings suggest that LAFOV <sup>68</sup>Ga-PSMA-11 PET may be the preferred imaging modality for comprehensive prostate cancer evaluation.
Medical subject headings
- Prostatic Neoplasms
- Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
- Edetic Acid
- Oligopeptides