Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Research ArticleBrief Communication

PSMA PET for the Assessment of Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer Volume of Disease

Francesco Barbato, Wolfgang P. Fendler, Isabel Rauscher, Ken Herrmann, Axel Wetter, Justin Ferdinandus, Robert Seifert, Michael Nader, Kambiz Rahbar, Boris Hadaschik, Matthias Eiber, Andrei Gafita and Manuel Weber
Journal of Nuclear Medicine December 2021, 62 (12) 1747-1750; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.121.262120
Francesco Barbato
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg–Essen and German Cancer Consortium–University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Wolfgang P. Fendler
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg–Essen and German Cancer Consortium–University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Isabel Rauscher
2Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ken Herrmann
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg–Essen and German Cancer Consortium–University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Axel Wetter
3Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University of Duisburg–Essen and German Cancer Consortium–University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Justin Ferdinandus
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg–Essen and German Cancer Consortium–University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert Seifert
4University of Münster and Cancer Consortium–University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Nader
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg–Essen and German Cancer Consortium–University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kambiz Rahbar
4University of Münster and Cancer Consortium–University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Boris Hadaschik
5Department of Urology, University of Duisburg–Essen and German Cancer Consortium–University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matthias Eiber
2Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrei Gafita
2Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Manuel Weber
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg–Essen and German Cancer Consortium–University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Visual Abstract

Figure
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Abstract

Conventional imaging of low-volume disease (LVD) versus high-volume disease (HVD) is associated with survival in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) according to the CHAARTED trial (Chemohormonal Therapy in Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer) and the STAMPEDE trial (Systemic Therapy for Advanced or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy). We propose a compatible quantitative PSMA PET framework for disease volume assessment in mHSPC. Methods: Three PET centers screened their PSMA PET database for mHSPC patients. CT versus PSMA PET stage, lesion number, and classification of LVD versus HVD were determined by 1 masked reader; PSMA-positive tumor volume was quantified semiautomatically. Results: In total, 85 CT-based CHAARTED LVD and 20 CT-based CHAARTED HVD patients were included. A PSMA tumor volume of about 40 cm3 was the optimal cutoff between CT-based CHAARTED LVD (nonunifocal) and HVD (non-M1c) (area under the curve, 0.86). Stratification into PET LVD (unifocal or oligometastatic/disseminated < ∼40 cm3) and PET HVD (oligometastatic/disseminated ≥ ∼40 cm3 or M1c) had 13% misalignment with the CHAARTED criteria. Conclusion: PSMA PET criteria with volume quantification deliver comparable LVD/HVD discrimination with additional subgroups for unifocal, oligometastatic, and disseminated disease, critical for guidance of targeted or multimodal therapy.

  • PSMA
  • prostate cancer
  • mHSPC
  • metastasis-directed treatment
  • CHAARTED

In the CHAARTED trial (Chemo Hormonal Therapy Versus Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial for Extensive Disease in Prostate Cancer), metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) patients with high-volume disease (HVD) particularly benefited from combined chemohormonal treatment (1). In addition, the STAMPEDE trial (Systemic Therapy for Advanced or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy) has shown improved failure-free survival in metastatic prostate cancer patients with low-volume disease (LVD) undergoing radiotherapy of the primary tumor (2). Beyond their primary goals, CHAARTED and STAMPEDE underline the importance of tumor burden assessment for the prediction of treatment response. In both trials, tumor burden assessment was based on conventional imaging, such as CT, MRI, and bone scans. However, novel prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) ligand PET demonstrates superior accuracy for prostate cancer localization at initial diagnosis and biochemical recurrence and for advanced disease (3–5). PSMA PET further offers automatic disease volume quantification (6). Superior imaging properties, growing availability, and novel applications such as guidance of targeted therapy necessitate an updated framework for mHSPC tumor volume assessment.

PSMA PET accuracy improves selection of treatment pathways and guidance of local and systemic therapy. The potential of metastasis-directed treatment for disease control, which may delay the need for systemic treatment, has recently been shown (7).

The aim of this retrospective study was to define novel PSMA PET mHSPC disease volume criteria that are compatible with CHAARTED/STAMPEDE and offer improved assessment such as automatic or semiautomatic volume quantification and identification of unifocal to oligometastatic disease subgroups.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients

PSMA PET databases of 3 high-volume PET centers (University Hospital Essen, Technical University of Munich, and University Hospital Münster) were screened for prostate cancer patients meeting the following 2 inclusion criteria, which were adapted from the criteria in the CHAARTED study: the first is metastases on CT, and the second is hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, defined as either no history of androgen deprivation therapy or concurrent androgen deprivation therapy for no more than 120 d without progression or prior androgen deprivation therapy (duration, ≤24 mo, no progression within 12 mo of completion).

The retrospective analysis was approved by the local ethics committee (University Duisburg–Essen, faculty of medicine; protocol 18-8094-BO), and the requirement for study-specific consent was waived.

Image Acquisition

All PET images were acquired on a Siemens Biograph mCT after administration of a mean of 128 MBq (interquartile range [IQR], 93.8–148.3 MBq) of 68Ga-PSMA11 (n = 79) or 333 MBq (IQR, 270.5–386.9 MBq) of 18F-rhPSMA (n = 17) or 328 MBq (IQR, 292.5–356.0 MBq) of 18F-PSMA1007 (n = 9) and an uptake interval of 70 min (IQR, 59–80 min).

Image Analysis

PET/CT and the corresponding CT dataset were anonymized separately and read by 1 masked central reader with at least 2 wk between PET/CT and CT reading sessions using OsiriX MD (Pixmeo SARL). Pathologic findings were assessed for 5 regions (prostate bed, pelvic lymph nodes, extrapelvic lymph nodes, bones, and viscera), including number of lesions and subregions involved in accordance with the PROMISE molecular imaging TNM classification (8). In accordance with CHAARTED, HVD was defined as the presence of visceral metastases or at least 4 bone metastases (≥1 beyond the vertebral bodies or the pelvis) based on the CT dataset (1). PSMA-positive tumor volume (PET volume) segmentation was performed semiautomatically using qPSMA software (6). For this segmentation, tumor lesions were localized on the CT scan and segmented on the PET scan with a freehand isocontour using an SUV higher than 3.0 (bone tissue) or higher than the mean liver uptake (soft tissue) as thresholds, respectively.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics are provided. To assess the PET volume optimal cutoff for CT-based CHAARTED HVD versus LVD, a receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) area under the curve with the Youden J index was used after excluding patients with unifocal or M1c disease. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software, version 26.0 (IBM Corp.). ROC curves were compared using the methodology of Hanley and McNeil (9) on MedCalc Statistical Software, version 19.7.1 (MedCalc Software).

RESULTS

Patients’ Characteristics

One hundred five patients were included; the median age was 68.2 y (IQR, 65–73 y), and median PSA was 2.6 ng/mL (IQR, 0.9–7.9 ng/mL). Gleason score was at least 8 in 56 of 105 patients (53%). Primary treatment was radical prostatectomy in 78 of 105 patients (74%); 5 of 105 patients (5%) had undergone primary radiotherapy, and 16 of 105 (15%) had either prior or concurrent treatment with androgen deprivation therapy. A subgroup of 40 of 105 patients (38%) had 3 y of follow-up since PSMA PET. Of these, 5 patients (12.5%) died from prostate cancer (Fig. 1). Of these 5 patients, 4 had CT-based CHAARTED and PET HVD and 1 had CT-based CHAARTED LVD and PET HVD. Sixty-five of 105 patients (62%) had less than 3 y of follow-up and were alive.

FIGURE 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1.

mHSPC disease extent as stratified by CT using CHAARTED criteria and PET using tumor volume and miTNM. Criteria for combined (miTNM and volume) PET volume-of-disease assessment are shown. Dashed line indicates area under curve for approximate 40-cm3 cutoff between PET LVD and PET HVD. Three-year overall survival is given for 40 patients (0 = alive; † = died; all others alive and 3 y after PET not yet reached). diss = disseminated; oligo = oligometastatic; uni = unifocal.

Supplemental Table 1 gives an overview of the patients’ characteristics (supplemental materials are available at http://jnm.snmjournals.org).

CT Disease Extent

Among the 105 patients, 1 (1%) had pelvic involvement only, 5 (5%) extrapelvic nodal involvement only (M1a), 8 (8%) any visceral involvement (M1c), and 91 (87%) any bone involvement. Eighty-five patients had CHAARTED LVD and 20 HVD (8 with visceral metastases and 12 with extensive bone involvement).

PSMA PET Disease Extent

Among the 105 patients, 1 (1%) had pelvic involvement only, 3 (3%) extrapelvic nodal involvement only (M1a), 10 (10%) any visceral involvement (M1c), and 91 (87%) bone involvement without visceral metastases. Table 1 summarizes changes for CT versus PSMA PET tumor extent on a lesion basis. When compared with CT findings, more lesions were found in 65 of 105 patients (62%), resulting in upstaging in 42 of 105 (40%). Overall, 25 of 105 patients (24%) had unifocal disease on PSMA PET, 39 of 105 (37%) had oligometastatic disease, and 41 of 105 (39%) had multifocal disease. Supplemental Table 2 gives an overview of TNM stage migration.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

mHSPC Disease Extent by CT Versus PSMA PET

When formally applying the CHAARTED criteria to PET, we found that PSMA PET led to hypothetical migration to CHAARTED HVD in 16 of 85 (19%) patients due to the detection of additional bone metastases (14/85, 16.5%) or visceral metastases (2/85, 2%). To optimize alignment of CT-based CHAARTED versus PET-based volume-of-disease classification, PET volume was assessed.

PET Volume and PET HVD Versus LVD Classification

Mean PET volume was significantly higher in CT-based CHAARTED HVD than in LVD patients (320.9 cm3 vs. 21.2 cm3; P < 0.001). ROC analysis showed an area under the curve of 0.86 for the PET volume–based classification of disease volume with 38.8 cm3 (termed ∼40 cm3 in the following) as the optimal cutoff. An optimal cutoff was applied to define a PET volume-of-disease classification with the lowest reasonably achievable misalignment (13%) with CT-based CHAARTED criteria: PET LVD (any unifocal; oligometastatic or disseminated < ∼40 cm3) versus PET HVD (oligometastatic or disseminated ≥ ∼40 cm3; any visceral) (Fig. 1). An additional ROC analysis of only those patients who had undergone 68Ga-PSMA PET showed an area under the curve of 0.84 and confirmed the optimal cutoff to be 38.8 cm3. Comparison of both ROC curves did not show statistically significant differences (P = 0.96).

PET versus CT-based volume-of-disease misalignment is detailed in Supplemental Table 3.

DISCUSSION

In this study with similar inclusion criteria to CHAARTED, PSMA PET when compared with CT detected additional lesions in almost two thirds of mHSPC patients, leading to hypothetical CHAARTED LVD-to-HVD migration in about one fifth of patients. PSMA PET offers improvement by semiautomatic disease volume measurement. An approximately 40-cm3 PET volume cutoff for patients with oligo- to disseminated metastatic disease was implemented in newly proposed PET volume-of-disease criteria with additional groups for unifocal and low-volume oligometastatic disease. PET volume-of-disease criteria were aligned with current CT-based CHAARTED disease volume groups (13% difference).

This study demonstrated high agreement between PSMA PET and CT for the involved TNM regions in mHSPC patients. However, PSMA PET detected significantly more lesions with a quantifiable tumor volume (3–6). High accuracy enables visualization of unifocal or oligometastatic disease extent. PSMA PET may aid in target volume delineation for metastasis-directed treatment, thus potentially delaying the need for systemic treatment, as previously assessed in the ORIOLE, STOMP, and SABR/COMET studies (7,10,11). On the other hand, PSMA PET detected disseminated disease in 1 of 5 patients with uni- or oligometastatic disease on conventional imaging. Upstaging aids in accurate identification of candidates for systemic treatment and prevents standalone metastasis-directed treatment when the clinical benefit is questionable.

In addition, semiautomatic assessment of tumor volume on PSMA PET allows for reproducible classification of PET HVD versus LVD. Using an optimized approximately 40-cm3 cutoff PET volume-of-disease classification was largely compatible with the CT-based CHAARTED criteria. The higher accuracy and rapidly growing availability of PSMA PET necessitates revised disease volume definitions. However, novel PET criteria need to align with current evidence on prognostic groups within the CHAARTED and STAMPEDE trials. Proposed PET criteria may allow for more accurate patient stratification in future clinical trials. PET subdivides LVD patients into those potentially eligible for metastasis-directed treatment (unifocal or oligometastatic disease) versus those with low-volume nontargetable disseminated disease (Fig. 1).

Shortcomings of the study are the lack of correlational bone scans and missing long-term survival follow-up due to the recent introduction of PSMA PET. When compared with the CHAARTED trial, our study included a larger proportion of patients with recurrent prostate cancer after initial therapy and lower PSA values. This difference affects the comparability of results.

qPSMA tumor volume measurement has been validated using 68Ga-PSMA datasets. Therefore, caution is warranted when expanding this framework to patients staged with 18F-labeled PSMA ligands; however, inclusion of 18F-PSMA did not significantly impact the optimal PET volume cutoff in our study.

CONCLUSION

Here, we propose novel PET volume-of-disease criteria: PET LVD (any unifocal; oligometastatic or disseminated < ∼40 cm3) versus PET HVD (oligometastatic or disseminated ≥ ∼40 cm3; any visceral). Novel PET criteria demonstrate acceptable alignment with the CHAARTED and STAMPEDE groups but need to be validated in larger patient cohorts with survival follow-up.

DISCLOSURE

Wolfgang P. Fendler is a consultant for Endocyte  and  BTG  and  received personal fees from RadioMedix outside the submitted work. Ken Herrmann reports personal fees from Bayer SIRTEX, Adacap, Curium, Endocyte, IPSEN, Siemens Healthineers, GE Healthcare, Amgen, Novartis, and ymabs; personal fees and other from Sofie Biosciences; nonfinancial support from ABX; and grants and personal fees from BTG outside the submitted work. Kambiz Rahbar has received consultant fees from Bayer and ABX; lectureship fees from Janssen Cilag, Amgen, AAA, and SIRTEX; and travel expenses as an unpaid member of the steering committee of the VISION trial. Boris Hadaschik reports advisory roles for ABX, Bayer, Lightpoint Medical, Inc., Janssen R&D, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, and Astellas; research funding from German Research Foundation, Janssen R&D, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, and Astellas; and travel support from AstraZeneca, Janssen R&D, and Astellas. Matthias Eiber reports an advisory role for Blue Earth Diagnostics, Point Biopharma, Telix, and Janssen and a patent application for rhPSMA. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

KEY POINTS

QUESTION: Does PSMA PET hold potential for improved tumor volume assessment over CT in patients with mHSPC?

PERTINENT FINDINGS: PSMA PET detects additional lesions in 62% of patients with mHSPC. Classification by virtue of quantified tumor volume and lesion number yields comparable results to conventional LVD versus HVD frameworks while providing a more accurate portrayal of true disease extent.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PATIENT CARE: The unparalleled accuracy of PSMA PET allows for improved tumor volume assessment in mHSPC and may facilitate the implementation of metastasis-directed treatment.

Footnotes

  • Published online May 14, 2021.

  • © 2021 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Sweeney CJ,
    2. Chen YH,
    3. Carducci M,
    4. et al
    . Chemohormonal therapy in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:737–746.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Parker CC,
    2. James ND,
    3. Brawley CD,
    4. et al
    . Radiotherapy to the primary tumour for newly diagnosed, metastatic prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): a randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2018;392:2353–2366.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Fendler WP,
    2. Calais J,
    3. Eiber M,
    4. et al
    . Assessment of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET accuracy in localizing recurrent prostate cancer: a prospective single-arm clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5:856–863.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.
    1. Fendler WP,
    2. Weber M,
    3. Iravani A,
    4. et al
    . Prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand positron emission tomography in men with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25:7448–7454.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Hofman MS,
    2. Lawrentschuk N,
    3. Francis RJ,
    4. et al
    . Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy (proPSMA): a prospective, randomised, multicentre study. Lancet. 2020;395:1208–1216.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Gafita A,
    2. Bieth M,
    3. Kronke M,
    4. et al
    . qPSMA: semiautomatic software for whole-body tumor burden assessment in prostate cancer using 68Ga-PSMA11 PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:1277–1283.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Phillips R,
    2. Shi WY,
    3. Deek M,
    4. et al
    . Outcomes of observation vs stereotactic ablative radiation for oligometastatic prostate cancer: the ORIOLE phase 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6:650–659.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    1. Eiber M,
    2. Herrmann K,
    3. Calais J,
    4. et al
    . Prostate cancer molecular imaging standardized evaluation (PROMISE): proposed miTNM classification for the interpretation of PSMA-ligand PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:469–478.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Hanley JA,
    2. McNeil BJ.
    A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology. 1983;148:839–843.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Ost P,
    2. Reynders D,
    3. Decaestecker K,
    4. et al
    . Surveillance or metastasis-directed therapy for oligometastatic prostate cancer recurrence: a prospective, randomized, multicenter phase II trial. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:446–453.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Palma DA,
    2. Olson R,
    3. Harrow S,
    4. et al
    . Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus standard of care palliative treatment in patients with oligometastatic cancers (SABR-COMET): a randomised, phase 2, open-label trial. Lancet. 2019;393:2051–2058.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  • Received for publication February 11, 2021.
  • Revision received March 19, 2021.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 62 (12)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 62, Issue 12
December 1, 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
PSMA PET for the Assessment of Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer Volume of Disease
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
PSMA PET for the Assessment of Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer Volume of Disease
Francesco Barbato, Wolfgang P. Fendler, Isabel Rauscher, Ken Herrmann, Axel Wetter, Justin Ferdinandus, Robert Seifert, Michael Nader, Kambiz Rahbar, Boris Hadaschik, Matthias Eiber, Andrei Gafita, Manuel Weber
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Dec 2021, 62 (12) 1747-1750; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.121.262120

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
PSMA PET for the Assessment of Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer Volume of Disease
Francesco Barbato, Wolfgang P. Fendler, Isabel Rauscher, Ken Herrmann, Axel Wetter, Justin Ferdinandus, Robert Seifert, Michael Nader, Kambiz Rahbar, Boris Hadaschik, Matthias Eiber, Andrei Gafita, Manuel Weber
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Dec 2021, 62 (12) 1747-1750; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.121.262120
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Visual Abstract
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • DISCLOSURE
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • This Month in JNM
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Low- and High-Volume Disease in Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: From CHAARTED to PSMA PET--An International Multicenter Retrospective Study
  • Tumor Sink Effect: Myth or Reality?
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Measuring Total Metabolic Tumor Volume from 18F-FDG PET: A Reality Check
  • Bioanalytic Hybrid System Merging 3-Dimensional Cell Culture and Chromatographic Precision for Unprecedented Preclinical Insights in Molecular Imaging
  • Radiances of Cerenkov-Emitting Radionuclides on the In Vivo Imaging System
Show more BRIEF COMMUNICATION

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • PSMA
  • prostate cancer
  • mHSPC
  • metastasis-directed treatment
  • CHAARTED
SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire