Article Figures & Data
Figures
- FIGURE 1.
Comparison of old and new protocols. p.i. = after injection; i.v. = intravenously.
- FIGURE 2.
Violin plots showing urinary bladder SUV for old and new protocols. Whereas increase in bladder SUVmean is seen for old protocol, this is not the case in new protocol.
- FIGURE 3.
Violin plots showing change in locally recurrent lesion SUVmax (prostatic fossa/seminal vesicle) vs. bladder SUVmean, that is, lesion-to-bladder contrast. Whereas a decrease in tumor-to-bladder ratio (i.e., lesion visibility) is seen at 2.5 h in old protocol, this was not the case in new protocol.
- FIGURE 4.
TBR change at 1.5 and 2.5 h. Points show mean TBR ± SE. Increase in TBR was lower for new protocol than for old protocol. p.i. = after injection.
- FIGURE 5.
Example patient scan showing locally recurrent lesions (arrows) obscured by high bladder activity in old protocol at late imaging. Shown are low-dose CT (A and D), PET (B and E), and fusion of PET and low-dose CT (C and F) images 2.5 h after injection (A–C) and 1.5 h after injection (D–F).
Tables
Parameter Old protocol New protocol Age (y) 67.9 ± 6.7 69.2 ± 6.3 Tracer (MBq) 216.9 ± 35.7 243.7 ± 39.5 Gleason score 7 (6–10) 7 (6–9) Prostate-specific antigen 1.1 ± 32.7 (mean, 11.5) 0.5 ± 45.6 (mean, 7.6) TNM* T (1–4) N (0, 0–1) M (0, 0–1) T (1–4) N (0, 0–1) M (0, 0–1) ↵* Classification of the Union for International Cancer Control, eighth edition.
Data are median ± SD followed by range in parentheses, unless otherwise noted.
Supplemental Data
Files in this Data Supplement:
