English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of 18 F-DCFBC PET/CT, a first-generation 18 F-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted agent, and 18 F-NaF PET/CT, a sensitive marker of osteoblastic activity, in a prospective cohort of patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Methods: Twenty-eight prostate cancer patients with metastatic disease on conventional imaging prospectively received up to 4 PET/CT scans. All patients completed baseline 18 F-DCFBC PET/CT and 18 F-NaF PET/CT scans, and 23 patients completed follow-up imaging, with a median follow-up interval of 5.7 mo (range, 4.2-12.6 mo). Lesion detection was compared across the 2 PET/CT agents at each time point. Detection and SUV characteristics of each PET/CT agent were compared with serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and treatment status at the time of baseline imaging using nonparametric statistical testing (Spearman correlation, Wilcoxon rank). Results: Twenty-six patients had metastatic disease detected on 18 F-NaF or 18 F-DCFBC at baseline, and 2 patients were negative on both scans. Three patients demonstrated soft tissue-only disease. Of 241 lesions detected at baseline, 56 were soft-tissue lesions identified by 18 F-DCFBC only and 185 bone lesions detected on 18 F-NaF or 18 F-DCFBC. 18 F-NaF detected significantly more bone lesions than 18 F-DCFBC ( P &lt; 0.001). Correlation of PSA with patient-level SUV metrics was strong in 18 F-DCFBC (ρ &gt; 0.5, P &lt; 0.01) and poor in 18 F-NaF (ρ &lt; 0.3, P &gt; 0.1). When PSA levels were combined with treatment status, patients with below-median levels of PSA (&lt;2 ng/mL) on androgen deprivation therapy ( n = 11) demonstrated more lesions on 18 F-NaF than 18 F-DCFBC ( P = 0.02). In PSA greater than 2 ng/mL, patients on androgen deprivation therapy ( n = 8) showed equal to or more lesions on 18 F-DCFBC than on 18 F-NaF. Conclusion: The utility of PSMA-targeting imaging in metastatic prostate cancer appears to depend on patient disease course and treatment status. Compared with 18 F-NaF PET/CT, 18 F-DCFBC PET/CT detected significantly fewer bone lesions in the setting of early or metastatic castrate-sensitive disease on treatment. However, in advanced metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, 18 F-DCFBC PET/CT shows good concordance with NaF PET/CT.

A Prospective Comparison of 18F-Sodium Fluoride PET/CT and PSMA-Targeted 18F-DCFBC PET/CT in Metastatic Prostate Cancer

A Prospective Comparison of ¹⁸F-Sodium Fluoride PET/CT and PSMA-Targeted ¹⁸F-DCFBC PET/CT in Metastatic Prostate Cancer