Next Article in Journal
Enhanced Liver Fibrosis Score for Diagnosing Liver Fibrosis in Chronic Hepatitis
Previous Article in Journal
Risk of Cardiovascular Events in Metabolically Healthy Overweight or Obese Adults: Role of LDL-Cholesterol in the Stratification of Risk
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 14
Issue 13
10.3390/diagnostics14131315
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Diagnostic Accuracy of Molecular Imaging Techniques for Detecting Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

by
Abdullah Fahad A. Alshamrani
Department of Diagnostic Radiology Technology, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Taibah University, Madinah 42353, Saudi Arabia
Diagnostics 2024, 14(13), 1315; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14131315
Submission received: 20 May 2024 / Revised: 17 June 2024 / Accepted: 19 June 2024 / Published: 21 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Medical Imaging and Theranostics)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Molecular imaging modalities show valuable non-invasive techniques capable of precisely and selectively addressing molecular markers associated with prostate cancer (PCa). This systematic review provides an overview of imaging markers utilized in positron emission tomography (PET) methods, specifically focusing on the pathways and mediators involved in PCa. This systematic review aims to evaluate and analyse existing literature on the diagnostic accuracy of molecular imaging techniques for detecting PCa. The PubMed, EBSCO, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science databases were searched, identifying 32 studies that reported molecular imaging modalities for detecting PCa. Numerous imaging modalities and radiotracers were used to detect PCa, including 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/computed tomography (CT), 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT, 18F-DCFPyL PET/MRI, 18F-choline PET/MRI, and 18F-fluoroethylcholine PET/MRI. Across 11 studies, radiolabelled 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT imaging had a pooled sensitivity of 80 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 35–93), specificity of 90 (95% CI: 71–98), and accuracy of 86 (95% CI: 64–96). The PSMA-ligand 68Ga-PET/CT showed good diagnostic performance and appears promising for detecting and staging PCa.

1. Introduction

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a common form of cancer affecting men worldwide [1]. Early PCa detection is crucial for effective treatment and improved patient outcomes. In recent years, molecular imaging techniques have emerged as promising tools for detecting PCa, its recurrence, and its metastasis [2]. These techniques offer the potential for increased accuracy and timely detection, allowing for more targeted and personalised treatments. Conventional imaging methods such as computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) currently have limited sensitivity for detecting early-stage or low-grade PCa [3]. Consequently, molecular imaging techniques targeting specific PCa biomarkers, such as the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) and androgen receptor (AR), have recently gained significant attention [4,5,6,7,8]. These techniques offer a distinct advantage by enabling a thorough and precise delineation, along with quantification, of biological processes at the cellular level in vivo.
Recent developments in imaging tracers and exceptionally targeted probes have elevated molecular imaging into a field of considerable interest [9,10]. There are several types of molecular imaging techniques, including conventional planar (2D) scintigraphy, single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), positron emission tomography (PET), and hybrid modalities. The SPECT and PET imaging techniques use gamma cameras and different isotopes (positrons) for imaging, respectively [11,12]. These radionuclides can be coupled with suitable ligands possessing available binding sites [13]. Various molecular imaging modalities, such as PET and MRI, and radiotracers have historically been used to examine patients with known PCa [14]. Combining techniques in multimodality probes allows the limitations of using only one type of modality to be overcome, providing increased diagnostic accuracy in detecting PCa lesions than single modalities such as CT, MRI, and bone scintigraphy [8]. These imaging techniques have emerged as accurate and precise tools for PCa staging and restaging [15,16,17,18].
There are several promising molecular imaging techniques for detecting PCa. One is PSMA PET/CT. PSMA is a protein that is overexpressed on the surface of PCa cells. PSMA PET/CT uses a radioactive tracer that binds to PSMA, allowing clinicians to visualise the cancer cells in the body [19,20]. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT is now widely used at initial PCa staging in patients with high metastatic risk or biochemical recurrence [5,21]. Active clinical trials are currently evaluating many PSMA-targeting agents, including 18F-PSMA-1007, 68Ga-PSMA-617, 68Ga-PSMA-I&T, and 18F-rhPSMA-7.3 [22,23]. Another promising molecular imaging technique is fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT. FDG PET/CT can detect PCa by visualising the areas of the body where the cancer cells are taking up more glucose than normal cells [24]. However, FDG PET/CT is not as specific for PCa as PSMA PET/CT. Other promising molecular imaging techniques use PET radiotracers, such as 18F-choline, 11C-choline, and fluciclovine, to image patients with known PCa [15,25,26].
The diagnostic accuracy of molecular imaging in prostate cancer is influenced by many factors, such as the imaging modality, radiotracer selection, and technical parameters such as resolution and signal-to-noise ratio [7]. Patient-specific factors, tumour characteristics, and operator expertise also significantly impact outcomes. Additionally, technological advancements and comprehensive clinical context integration are crucial for precise and reliable diagnostics [27].
The diagnostic accuracy of molecular imaging techniques for detecting PCa is constantly evolving. As these techniques continue to develop, they will likely become the standard of care for diagnosing and staging PCa. Therefore, this study aims to systematically review the diagnostic accuracy of molecular imaging techniques for detecting PCa, focusing on their role and ability to accurately assess PCa.

2. Methods

2.1. Resources and Search Terms

A systematic search was performed in several databases including PubMed, EBSCO, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science for relevant articles published between 2010 and 2023. The search strategy used a combination of medical subject headings [Mesh] and keywords related to molecular imaging techniques and PCa. Several keywords (alone or in combination) were searched to find relevant articles: molecular imaging [*], prostate cancer [*], detecting [*], and accuracy [*].

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

All original human studies involving patients with PCa that used PET/MRI, PET/CT, MRI, or CT scans were included in this review. Reviews and clinical cases studies were excluded from this review.

2.3. Study Selection

The study selection and data extraction followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for conducting and reporting systematic reviews (Supplementary Materials) [28]. This systematic review focused on studies that investigated the accuracy of PCa detection using molecular imaging techniques, including all studies that investigated the use of PET scintigraphy for PCa diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy response assessment at different clinical stages.
The initial search focused on screening the titles, abstracts, and full-text articles of potentially eligible studies for inclusion. This search was limited to articles published in English in peer-reviewed journals. An additional search was conducted to include all studies on the diagnostic accuracy of molecular imaging techniques for detecting PCa. Finally, two independent reviewers screened the titles and abstracts, and full-text articles of potentially eligible studies were assessed for inclusion. The study selection procedure is shown in a flow chart in Figure 1.

3. Results

The search identified 32 studies that reported molecular imaging modalities for detecting and staging PCa and its recurrence. Several imaging modalities and radiotracers were used to detect PCa, including 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT, 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI, 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT, 18F-DCFPyL PET/MRI, 18F-choline PET/MRI, and 18F-fluoroethylcholine (FEC) PET/MRI. Eleven studies evaluated PCa staging and accuracy with 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT and compared it to other modalities and radiotracers. Seven studies evaluated and compared PCa localisation with 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI. Six studies evaluated the accuracy of 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT and compared it to other modalities. Two studies evaluated 18F-2-(3-{1-carboxy-5-[(6-[18F]fluoro-pyridine-3-carbonyl)-amino]-pentyl}-ureido)-pentanedioic acid (DCFPyL) PET/MRI. One study evaluated 18F-choline PET/MRI, and another evaluated 18F-FEC PET/MRI. One study evaluated 11C-choline PET/MRI, and another evaluated 11C-acetate PET/MRI. Finally, two studies evaluated 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT. The details of these molecular imaging techniques, including their accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive prediction value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV), are summarised in Table 1.
68Ga-PSMA PET/CT emerged as a prominent molecular imaging technique in the evaluated studies, with eleven investigations dedicated to assessing its efficacy in PCa staging and accuracy. The studies collectively demonstrated a consistent and notable performance of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in detecting nodal metastasis and recurrent lesions and staging primary PCa. The detection rates ranged from 64% to 96%, exhibiting its robust ability to identify primary lesions, particularly in patients with high-risk disease. Comparative analyses with other imaging modalities (MRI, CT) and radiotracers revealed that 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT consistently outperformed the alternatives, affirming its superiority in providing accurate and reliable information for PCa staging. Cytawa et al. demonstrated that 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT has a low sensitivity (35%) and high specificity (98%) for the detection of metastatic lymph nodes in patients with PCa [29].
Furthermore, the examination of PCa localization through 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI in seven studies further emphasized the versatility of this technique, showing its capability to precisely localize PCa lesions. The accuracy of this hybrid imaging modality was particularly highlighted in the assessment of PCa localization, with reported rates ranging from 74% to 99%, providing precise and comprehensive information for PCa localization.
Finally, the efficacy of 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT was investigated in six studies, each involving a comparative analysis with alternative imaging modalities for PCa assessment. The results consistently described the robust diagnostic accuracy of 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT in detecting metastasis in recurrent and staging PCa, with reported accuracy rates ranging from 81% to 99%. Ingvar et al. reported that 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT has a low sensitivity (26%) and high specificity (96%) for the detection of lymph node metastases in PCa patients [30]. Table 2 compares the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the radiolabelled 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT, 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI, and 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/C techniques for PCa detection.
Table 1. Summary of the studies that reported molecular imaging techniques for the detection of prostate cancer.
Table 1. Summary of the studies that reported molecular imaging techniques for the detection of prostate cancer.
Authors, Date PatientsTopicAccuracy (%)Sensitivity (%)Specificity (%)PPV
(%)		NPV (%)
Sonni et al. 2022 [31]74Comparison of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT and mpMRI857771--
Donato et al. 2020 [32]14468Ga-PSMA PET/CT for localisation of PCa.909195--
Glemser et al. 2022 [16]5368Ga-PSMA-11 PET-CT, PET-MRI and MRI in recurrent PCa.64, 67 &43----
Hofman et al. 2020 [5]150Evaluation of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT vs. CT928592--
Hijazi et al. 2015 [33]35Evaluation of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in PCa9194998999
Cytawa et al. 2020 [29]8268Ga-PSMA I&T PET/CT for primary staging of PCa.9335986395
Liu et al. 2020 [34]31Evaluation of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT8393757792
Zacho et al. 2018 [35]6868Ga-PSMA PET/CT8980988997
Hirmas et al. 2019 [36]2168Ga-PSMA PET/CT Staging and management of patients with PCa.8585-100-
Chandra et al. 2020 [37]64Accuracy of Ga-68 PSMA PET/CT8674928586
Chen et al. 2019 [17]54Combination of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT and mp MRI968996--
Taneja et al. 2018 [38]35Combined 68Ga-PSMA- HBED-CCPET/MRI999675--
Jena et al. 2018 [39]82Combined 68Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC PET/MRI879087--
Doan et al. 2023 [40]100Synchronous PSMA-PET/mpMRI-93637986
Afshar-Oromieh et al. 2014 [41]20Comparison of 68Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC PET/MRI with PET/CT-8789--
Al-Bayati et al. 2018 [42]22Evaluation of integrated 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI in PCa.9588100--
Muehlematter et al. 2019 [43]40Accuracy of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI vs. mp MRI745094--
Eiber et al. 2016 [44]6668Ga-PSMA HBED-CC PET/MRI for Localization of Primary PCa.887697--
Liu et al. 2023 [45]30Evaluation of 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT 991009799100
Ferraro et al. 2022 [46]518F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT- guided biopsy in PCa.816587--
Malaspina et al., 2021 [47]31Comparison of 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT, whole-body MRI and CT87879883-
Kuten et al. 2020 [48]16Comparison of 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT with 68Ga-PSMA-11941009087100
Mingels et al. 2022 [49]81Accuracy of 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT in recurrence PCa.9195898696
Ingvar et al. 2022 [30]26Accuracy of 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT 26967079
Bodar et al. 2022 [50]3018F-DCFPyL PET/MRI compared to mpMRI8370898990
Liu et al. 2021 [51]52Comparison between 18F-DCFPyL PET and MRI9093779570
Lee et al. 2017 [15]31Integrated 18F-choline PET/MRI vs. mpMRI and PET/CT7572819055
Hartenbach et al. 2014 [52]38Combined 18F-fluoroethylcholine (FEC) PET/MRI8284808578
Souvatzoglou et al. 2013 [26]32Comparison whole-body 11C-choline PET/MR with PET/CT 8292--
Polanec et al. 2017 [53]56MP11C-Acetate PET-MRI for assessment and staging PCa.9710096--
Zanoni et al. 2021 [54]7218F-fluciclovine PET/CT vs 11C-choline PET/CT7450814783
Odewole et al. 2016 [55]53Detection recurrent PCa. with18F-FACBC PET/CT7888568169
PPV, positive prediction value; NPV, negative prediction value.

4. Discussion

Several studies have evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of molecular imaging techniques for PCa detection with different radiotracers [15,16,17,26,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55]. Various PET/CT and PET/MRI radiotracers have been investigated for diagnosing and staging metastatic PCa. The compared radiotracers include 18F or 11C-choline, 11C-acetate, 18F-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid (18F-FACBC or 18F-fluciclovine), and those targeting PSMA. Most are radiolabelled with either Gallium-68 or Fluorine-18. 18F-FDG is of limited use in PCa staging due to the relatively low glycolytic activity of most PCa tumours [56].

4.1. Diagnostic Performance of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT

PSMA is an excellent target for radionuclide PCa imaging due to its high expression in PCa cells. Recent studies have consistently demonstrated the superior diagnostic accuracy of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in various aspects of PCa detection and characterization compared to multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and other imaging modalities. Sonni et al. 2022 found that 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT outperformed mpMRI in detecting primary PCa, especially in high-risk cases, with detection rates of 85% and 83%, respectively [31]. Donato et al., 2020, reported higher sensitivity for PSMA-PET/CT (95%) compared to MRI (86%), without compromising specificity [32]. Glemser et al. 2020. demonstrated the superiority of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET-CT and PET-MRI over MRI alone, with higher accuracy for detecting PCa relapse lesions (64% for PET-CT, 67% for PET-MRI, and 43% for MRI) [16]. Hofman et al. 2020 found that 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT provided superior accuracy and sensitivity for N-staging compared to combined CT and bone scan findings [5].
68Ga-PSMA PET/CT showed higher accuracy for detecting nodal metastasis in biochemically recurring and high-risk primary PCa. Hijazi et al., 2015, found that 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT had 94% sensitivity and 99% specificity [33]. Cytawa et al. 2020 reported a high accuracy of 93% and specificity of 98% for 68Ga-PSMA I&T PET/CT in staging primary PCa. However, they reported a low sensitivity of 35% due to the high appearance of micro-metastases [29]. Liu et al., 2020, compared the diagnostic accuracy of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT and standard plus PET/CT-Ultrasound fusion targeted prostate biopsy for diagnosing clinically significant PCa. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT had an accuracy of 83%, a sensitivity of 93%, and a specificity of 75% [34]. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT was superior in terms of detecting metastasis in recurrent PCa compared to diffusion-weighted MRI, with a diagnostic accuracy of 89%, a sensitivity of 80%, and a specificity of 98% [35]. Moreover, 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT significantly impacted the initial staging and management plans for high-risk PCa patients, outperforming CT, MRI, and bone scans in terms of diagnostic accuracy [36]. Chandra et al., 2020, highlighted the high diagnostic accuracy of prebiopsy 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in differentiating benign and malignant prostate lesions (sensitivity: 74%, specificity: 92%, overall accuracy: 86%) [37]. Finally, the combination of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI demonstrated a higher diagnostic accuracy than either modality alone for detecting clinically significant PCa, with a sensitivity of 89%, specificity of 96%, and overall accuracy of 96% [17].
These findings collectively support the increasing role of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT as a powerful tool in the diagnosis and management of PCa. Although there are some limitations for primary lesions and T and N-staging, 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT is the superior method for distant metastases compared to conventional methods.

4.2. Diagnostic Performance of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI

In a series of studies, researchers explored the diagnostic potential of combining PET/MRI techniques with PSMA tracers for PCa imaging. Jena et al. 2018 and Taneja et al. 2018 revealed that combining 68Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC uptake patterns with simultaneously acquired mpMRI parameters using PET/MRI improved primary PCa diagnosis compared to using each technique alone [38,39]. Al-Bayati et al. 2018 and Doan et al. 2023 found that integrated 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI exhibited higher diagnostic accuracy than mpMRI alone, particularly in PCa tumours [40,42]. Afshar-Oromieh et al., 2014, demonstrated that 68Ga-PSMA PET/MRI outperformed PET/CT, detecting recurrent PCa more easily and accurately with lower radiation exposure. PET/CT was reported to have a sensitivity of 76% and specificity of 89%, while PET/MRI was reported to have a sensitivity of 87% and specificity of 89% [41]. Muehlematter et al. 2019 compared mpMRI and 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI for extracapsular extension (ECE) and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), revealing higher specificity for 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI [43]. Finally, Eiber et al., 2016, found that simultaneous 68Ga-PSMA HBED-CC PET/MRI improved the diagnostic accuracy for localizing primary PCa compared to mpMRI or PET alone, with reported accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 88%, 76%, and 97%, respectively [44]. These studies collectively underscore the enhanced diagnostic capabilities of combining PSMA-targeted PET imaging with MRI for various aspects of PCa assessment. In summary, there are some limitations of PET/MRI in detecting small LNs metastases, and a limited number of studies exist to compare the performance of PET/MRI against PET/CT.

4.3. Diagnostic Performance of 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT

In a comprehensive exploration of 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT applications in PCa, studies consistently highlight its diagnostic superiority in various contexts. Liu et al., 2023, found that 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT outperformed 18F-FDG PET/CT with a high accuracy of 99%, sensitivity of 100%, and specificity of 97% in detecting primary PCa lesions [45]. Ferraro et al., 2022, demonstrated the efficacy of 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT-guided biopsy for accurate lesion sampling intraoperatively [46]. Malaspina et al., 2021, showed the superiority of 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT over whole-body MRI and CT in nodal staging, reporting an accuracy of 87%, sensitivity of 87%, and specificity of 98% [47]. Furthermore, Kuten et al., 2020, compared 18F-PSMA-1007 and 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT, revealing that both identified dominant prostatic lesions, with 18F-PSMA-1007 demonstrating a higher sensitivity of 100%. They demonstrated that 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT could also detect additional low-grade lesions of limited clinical relevance [48]. Mingels et al., 2022, highlighted the high diagnostic accuracy of 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT in detecting biochemical recurrence (accuracy: 91%, sensitivity: 95%, specificity: 89%) [49]. However, Ingvar et al., 2022, reported lower sensitivity (26%) due to small-sized metastases, but high specificity (96%) for 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT in the primary staging of lymph node metastases in intermediate- and high-risk PCa [30]. Collectively, these studies underscore the versatility and effectiveness of 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT across various diagnostic scenarios in PCa. However, 18F-labelled PSAM agents have not been as extensively studied as 68Ga-labelled agents.

4.4. Diagnostic Performance of 18F-DCFPyL-PET/MRI

Bodar et al., 2022, directly compared 18F-DCFPyL-PET/MRI and mpMRI in the detection of PCa. They found that 18F-DCFPyL-PET/MRI had a higher PCa detection rate than mpMRI alone. The diagnostic performance of 18F-DCFPyL PET/MRI showed an accuracy of 83%, a sensitivity of 70%, and a specificity of 89% [50]. Moreover, Liu et al. 2021 compared the diagnostic performance of 18F-DCFPyL PET and mpMRI in the detection of transition zone (TZ) PCa. They found that 18F-DCFPyL PET had a higher diagnostic value than mp-MRI. They reported that 18F-DCFPyL PET had an accuracy of 90%, a sensitivity of 93%, and a specificity of 77% [51]. Finally, all studies that were found only compared 18F-DCFPyL-PET/MRI with mpMRI, whereas there are limited studies comparing the performance with other molecular methods.

4.5. Diagnostic Performance of 18F-Choline PET/MRI and 18F-FEC PET/MRI

PCa cells also show an increased uptake of 18F-choline. Lee et al. 2017 investigated the diagnostic value of integrated 18F-choline PET/MRI in comparison to mpMRI and PET/CT for detecting and localising PCa. They reported superior sensitivity, accuracy, and diagnostic value with integrated PET/MRI, emphasizing its better performance over mpMRI and PET/CT [15]. Integrated 18F-choline PET/MRI exhibited the highest accuracy among the assessed modalities. Hartenbach et al., 2014, found that combined 18F-FEC PET/MRI achieved very high sensitivity (84%), specificity (80%), and accuracy (82%) in detecting dominant malignant prostate lesions, surpassing the diagnostic capabilities of PET or MRI alone [52]. The weakness of these agents has been assessed in a limited number of studies.

4.6. Diagnostic Performance of 11C-Choline/Acetate PET/MRI

11C-choline showed superiority and gained popularity in the primary staging of PCa. Souvatzoglou et al., 2013, compared integrated whole-body 11C-choline PET/MRI to PET/CT for detecting and localizing PCa, finding higher diagnostic accuracy with PET/MRI (sensitivity: 82%, specificity: 92%) [26]. Polanec et al., 2017, assessed multiparametric 11C-acetate PET/MRI for PCa staging, reporting remarkable accuracy (97%), 100% sensitivity, and 96% specificity [53]. This method provided valuable insights into molecular and metabolic processes, especially in high-risk PCa cases. The main weaknesses of these methods include the limited sensitivity for detected small lesions and the short half-life of the 11C agent.

4.7. Diagnostic Performance of 18F-Fluciclovine PET/CT

18F-Fluciclovine, also known as FACBC, performed better in evaluating PCa and recurrent disease. Zanoni et al. 2021 recently assessed 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT for nodal staging in high-risk primary PCa, revealing 74% accuracy, 50% sensitivity, and 81% specificity [54]. The study showed better specificity for 18F-fluciclovine over 11C-cholin. In addition, Odewole et al. 2016 found 18F-FACBC PET/CT to be more effective than CT in detecting recurrent prostate cancer, with 78% accuracy, 88% sensitivity, and 56% specificity [55]. Although 18F-FACBC PET/CT has shown good performance in recurrent metastasis, it has no significant role in primary staging detection.
This review focused on collecting data on the diagnostic performance of various imaging modalities in patients with PCa. The current study’s data show the good diagnostic performance of PET/CT or PET/MRI with different radiopharmaceuticals, which have high accuracy in detecting metastases and provide valuable insights for diagnosing, staging, and managing PCa. Molecular imaging techniques can add clinical benefits compared to conventional imaging for detecting PCa lymph node metastasis and recurrence after radical prostatectomy [2]. The limitation of this review is the limited number of studies on the diagnostic performance of all PET/MRI tracers in PCa, which reduces the statistical power of the analysis.
The diagnostic accuracy of molecular imaging techniques for detecting PCa has been a subject of research in recent years. Therefore, more research is needed to confirm these findings and to determine the optimal use of these techniques in clinical practice.

5. Conclusions

Molecular imaging techniques offer several advantages over traditional imaging techniques for PCa detection, including increased accuracy, personalised treatment, timely detection, and comprehensive assessment. PSMA-ligand PET/CT is superior to conventional methods for detecting distant metastases, mainly due to its greater accuracy. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT offers an approach with moderate sensitivity and high specificity for detecting metastatic LNs and staging PCa. Furthermore, PET/MRI with different radiopharmaceuticals has shown promising accuracy and effectiveness for PCa diagnosis and management. Further research is needed to explore the diagnostic accuracy of these techniques in different patient populations and disease stages.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/diagnostics14131315/s1.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study did not require ethical approval.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Jemal, A.; Bray, F.; Center, M.M.; Ferlay, J.; Ward, E.; Forman, D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2011, 61, 69–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Trabulsi, E.J.; Rumble, R.B.; Jadvar, H.; Hope, T.; Pomper, M.; Turkbey, B.; Rosenkrantz, A.B.; Verma, S.; Margolis, D.J.; Froemming, A.; et al. Optimum Imaging Strategies for Advanced Prostate Cancer: ASCO Guideline. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38, 1963–1996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bouchelouche, K.; Turkbey, B.; Choyke, P.; Capala, J. Imaging prostate cancer: An update on positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Curr. Urol. Rep. 2010, 11, 180–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Alemozaffar, M.; Akintayo, A.A.; Abiodun-Ojo, O.A.; Patil, D.; Saeed, F.; Huang, Y.; Osunkoya, A.O.; Goodman, M.M.; Sanda, M.; Schuster, D.M. [18F]Fluciclovine positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for preoperative staging in patients with intermediate to high risk primary prostate cancer. J. Urol. 2020, 204, 734–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hofman, M.S.; Lawrentschuk, N.; Francis, R.J.; Tang, C.; Vela, I.; Thomas, P.; Rutherford, N.; Martin, J.M.; Frydenberg, M.; Shakher, R. Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before curative-intent surgery or radi-otherapy (proPSMA): A prospective, randomised, multicentre study. Lancet 2020, 395, 1208–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zarzour, J.G.; Galgano, S.; McConathy, J.; Thomas, J.V.; Rais-Bahrami, S. Lymph node imaging in initial staging of prostate cancer: An overview and update. World J. Radiol. 2017, 9, 389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Manafi-Farid, R.; Ranjbar, S.; Araghi, Z.J.; Pilz, J.; Schweighofer-Zwink, G.; Pirich, C.; Beheshti, M. Molecular imaging in primary staging of prostate cancer patients: Current aspects and future trends. Cancers 2021, 13, 5360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mena, E.; Black, P.C.; Rais-Bahrami, S.; Gorin, M.; Allaf, M.; Choyke, P. Novel PET imaging methods for prostate cancer. World J. Urol. 2021, 39, 687–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Rosado-De-Castro, P.H.; de Souza, S.A.L.; Alexandre, D.; da Fonseca, L.M.B.; Gutfilen, B. Rheumatoid arthritis: Nuclear medicine state-of-the-art imaging. World J. Orthop. 2014, 5, 312–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. van der Meulen, N.P.; Strobel, K.; Lima, T.V.M. New radionuclides and technological advances in SPECT and PET scanners. Cancers 2021, 13, 6183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Stacy, M.R.; Maxfield, M.W.; Sinusas, A.J. Targeted Molecular Imaging of Angiogenesis in PET and SPECT: A Review. Yale J. Biol. Med. 2012, 85, 75–86. [Google Scholar]
  12. Shaw, R.C.; Tamagnan, G.D.; Tavares, A.A.S. Rapidly (and successfully) translating novel brain radiotracers from animal research into clinical use. Front. Neurosci. 2020, 14, 871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Okoye, N.C.; Baumeister, J.E.; Najafi Khosroshahi, F.; Hennkens, H.M.; Jurisson, S.S. Chelators and metal complex stability for radi-opharmaceutical applications. Radiochim. Acta 2019, 107, 1087–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Galgano, S.J.; West, J.T.; Rais-Bahrami, S. Role of molecular imaging in the detection of localized prostate cancer. Ther. Adv. Urol. 2022, 14, 17562872221105018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lee, M.S.; Cho, J.Y.; Kim, S.Y.; Cheon, G.J.; Moon, M.H.; Oh, S.; Lee, J.; Lee, S.; Woo, S.; Kim, S.H. Diagnostic value of integrated PET/MRI for detection and localization of prostate cancer: Comparative study of multiparametric MRI and PET/CT. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2015, 45, 597–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Glemser, P.A.; Rotkopf, L.T.; Ziener, C.H.; Beuthien-Baumann, B.; Weru, V.; Kopp-Schneider, A.; Schlemmer, H.P.; Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss, A.; Sachpekidis, C. Hybrid imaging with [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET-CT and PET-MRI in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. Cancer Imaging 2022, 22, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chen, M.; Zhang, Q.; Zhang, C.; Zhao, X.; Marra, G.; Gao, J.; Lv, X.; Zhang, B.; Fu, Y.; Wang, F.; et al. Combination of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT and multiparametric mri improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: A lesion-by-lesion analysis. J. Nucl. Med. 2019, 60, 944–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lopci, E.; Guazzoni, G.; Lazzeri, M. 68Ga Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen PET/CT for Primary Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: Complementary or Alternative to Multiparametric MR Imaging. Radiology 2018, 287, 725–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Houshmand, S.; Lawhn-Heath, C.; Behr, S. PSMA PET imaging in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. Abdom. Imaging 2023, 48, 3610–3623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Eiber, M.; Herrmann, K.; Calais, J.; Hadaschik, B.; Giesel, F.L.; Hartenbach, M.; Hope, T.A.; Reiter, R.; Maurer, T.; Weber, W.A.; 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Maurer, T.; Eiber, M.; Schwaiger, M.; Gschwend, J.E. Current use of PSMA–PET in prostate cancer management. Nat. Rev. Urol. 2016, 13, 226–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Meher, N.; VanBrocklin, H.F.; Wilson, D.M.; Flavell, R.R. PSMA-Targeted Nanotheranostics for Imaging and Radiotherapy of Prostate Cancer. Pharmaceuticals 2023, 16, 315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Farolfi, A.; Calderoni, L.; Mattana, F.; Mei, R.; Telo, S.; Fanti, S.; Castellucci, P. Current and emerging clinical applications of PSMA PET diagnostic imaging for prostate cancer. J. Nucl. Med. 2021, 62, 596–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jadvar, H. Molecular Imaging of Prostate Cancer: PET Radiotracers. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2012, 199, 278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Pernthaler, B.; Kulnik, R.; Gstettner, C.; Salamon, S.; Aigner, R.M.; Kvaternik, H. A Prospective Head-to-Head Comparison of 18F-Fluciclovine With 68Ga-PSMA-11 in Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer in PET/CT. Clin. Nucl. Med. 2019, 44, e566–e573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Souvatzoglou, M.; Eiber, M.; Takei, T.; Fürst, S.; Maurer, T.; Gaertner, F.; Geinitz, H.; Drzezga, A.; Ziegler, S.; Nekolla, S.G.; et al. Comparison of integrated whole-body [11C]choline PET/MR with PET/CT in patients with prostate cancer. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. 2013, 40, 1486–1499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ferro, M.; de Cobelli, O.; Vartolomei, M.D.; Lucarelli, G.; Crocetto, F.; Barone, B.; Sciarra, A.; Del Giudice, F.; Muto, M.; Maggi, M.; et al. Prostate cancer radiogenomics—From imaging to molecular characterization. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 9971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cytawa, W.; Seitz, A.K.; Kircher, S.; Fukushima, K.; Tran-Gia, J.; Schirbel, A.; Bandurski, T.; Lass, P.; Krebs, M.; Lapa, C.; et al. 68Ga-PSMA I&T PET/CT for primary staging of prostate cancer. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2020, 47, 168–177. [Google Scholar]
  30. Ingvar, J.; Hvittfeldt, E.; Trägårdh, E.; Simoulis, A.; Bjartell, A. Assessing the accuracy of [18F]PSMA-1007 PET/CT for primary staging of lymph node metastases in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer patients. EJNMMI Res. 2022, 12, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sonni, I.; Felker, E.R.; Lenis, A.T.; Sisk, A.E.; Bahri, S.; Allen-Auerbach, M.; Armstrong, W.R.; Suvannarerg, V.; Tubtawee, T.; Grogan, T.; et al. Head-to-head comparison of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT and mpMRI with histopathology gold-standard in the detection, intra-prostatic localization and local extension of primary prostate cancer: Results from a prospective single-center imaging trial. J. Nucl. Med. 2022, 63, 847–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Donato, P.; Morton, A.; Yaxley, J.; Ranasinghe, S.; Teloken, P.E.; Kyle, S.; Coughlin, G.; Esler, R.; Dunglison, N.A.; Gardiner, R.; et al. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT better characterises localised prostate cancer after MRI and transperineal prostate biopsy: Is 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT guided biopsy the future? Eur. J. Nucl. Med. 2020, 47, 1843–1851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Hijazi, S.; Meller, B.; Leitsmann, C.; Strauss, A.; Meller, J.; Ritter, C.O.; Lotz, J.; Schildhaus, H.-U.; Trojan, L.; Sahlmann, C.O. Pelvic lymph node dissection for nodal oligometastatic prostate cancer detected by 68Ga-PSMA-positron emission tomography/computerized tomography. Prostate 2015, 75, 1934–1940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Liu, C.; Liu, T.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, N.; Du, P.; Yang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Yu, W.; Li, N.; Gorin, M.A.; et al. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT combined with PET/Ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy can diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer in men with previous negative biopsy results. J. Nucl. Med. 2020, 61, 1314–1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Zacho, H.D.; Nielsen, J.B.; Afshar-Oromieh, A.; Haberkorn, U.; deSouza, N.; De Paepe, K.; Dettmann, K.; Langkilde, N.C.; Haarmark, C.; Fisker, R.V.; et al. Prospective comparison of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT, 18F-sodium fluoride PET/CT and diffusion weighted-MRI at for the detection of bone metastases in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2018, 45, 1884–1897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Hirmas, N.; Al-Ibraheem, A.; Herrmann, K.; Alsharif, A.; Muhsin, H.; Khader, J.; Al-Daghmin, A.; Salah, S. [68Ga]PSMA PET/CT Improves Initial Staging and Management Plan of Patients with High-Risk Prostate Cancer. Mol. Imaging Biol. 2019, 21, 574–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Chandra, P.; Rajaian, S.; Krishnamurthy, K.; Murugasen, L.; Chandran, G.; Kumar, J.S.; Nath, S. Diagnostic accuracy of prebiopsy Ga-68 PSMA PET/CT in detecting primary prostate carcinomas with prostate-specific antigen <50 ng/mL. Indian J. Nucl. Med. 2020, 35, 283–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Taneja, S.; Jena, A.; Taneja, R.; Singh, A.; Ahuja, A. Effect of Combined 68Ga-PSMAHBED-CC Uptake Pattern and Multiparametric MRI Derived with Simultaneous PET/MRI in the Diagnosis of Primary Prostate Cancer: Initial Experience. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2018, 210, 1338–1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Jena, A.; Taneja, R.; Taneja, S.; Singh, A.; Kumar, V.; Agarwal, A.; Subramanian, N. Improving Diagnosis of Primary Prostate Cancer with Combined 68Ga–Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen–HBED-CC Simultaneous PET and Multiparametric MRI and Clinical Parameters. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2018, 211, 1246–1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Doan, P.; Counter, W.; Papa, N.; Sheehan-Dare, G.; Ho, B.; Lee, J.; Liu, V.; Thompson, J.E.; Agrawal, S.; Roberts, M.J.; et al. Synchronous vs independent reading of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to improve diagnosis of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2023, 131, 588–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Afshar-Oromieh, A.; Haberkorn, U.; Schlemmer, H.P.; Fenchel, M.; Eder, M.; Eisenhut, M.; Hadaschik, B.A.; Kopp-Schneider, A.; Röthke, M. Comparison of PET/CT and PET/MRI hybrid systems using a 68Ga-labelled PSMA ligand for the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer: Initial experience. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. 2014, 41, 887–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Al-Bayati, M.; Grueneisen, J.; Lütje, S.; Sawicki, L.M.; Suntharalingam, S.; Tschirdewahn, S.; Forsting, M.; Rübben, H.; Herrmann, K.; Umutlu, L.; et al. Integrated 68Gallium Labelled Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen-11 Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging Enhances Discriminatory Power of Multi-Parametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Urol. Int. 2018, 100, 164–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Muehlematter, U.J.; Burger, I.A.; Becker, A.S.; Schawkat, K.; Hötker, A.M.; Reiner, C.S.; Müller, J.; Rupp, N.J.; Rüschoff, J.H.; Eberli, D.; et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Multiparametric MRI versus 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI for Extracapsular Extension and Seminal Vesicle Invasion in Patients with Prostate Cancer. Radiology 2019, 293, 350–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Eiber, M.; Weirich, G.; Holzapfel, K.; Souvatzoglou, M.; Haller, B.; Rauscher, I.; Beer, A.J.; Wester, H.-J.; Gschwend, J.; Schwaiger, M.; et al. Simultaneous 68Ga-PSMA HBED-CC PET/MRI Improves the Localization of Primary Prostate Cancer. Eur. Urol. 2016, 70, 829–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Liu, F.; Jiang, Y.; Li, B.; Wang, Y.; Zhou, W.; Ruan, Y.; Wang, J.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, J. 18 F-PSMA-1007 and 18 F-FDG PET/CT in patients with prostate cancer. 2023. preprint. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ferraro, D.A.; Laudicella, R.; Zeimpekis, K.; Mebert, I.; Müller, J.; Maurer, A.; Grünig, H.; Donati, O.; Sapienza, M.T.; Rueschoff, J.H.; et al. Hot needles can confirm accurate lesion sampling intraoperatively using [18F]PSMA-1007 PET/CT-guided biopsy in patients with suspected prostate cancer. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. 2021, 49, 1721–1730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Malaspina, S.; Anttinen, M.; Taimen, P.; Jambor, I.; Sandell, M.; Rinta-Kiikka, I.; Kajander, S.; Schildt, J.; Saukko, E.; Noponen, T.; et al. Prospective comparison of 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT, whole-body MRI and CT in primary nodal staging of unfavourable intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. 2021, 48, 2951–2959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kuten, J.; Fahoum, I.; Savin, Z.; Shamni, O.; Gitstein, G.; Hershkovitz, D.; Mabjeesh, N.J.; Yossepowitch, O.; Mishani, E.; Even-Sapir, E. Head-to-head comparison of 68Ga-PSMA-11 with 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT in staging prostate cancer using histopathology and immunohistochemical analysis as a reference standard. J. Nucl. Med. 2020, 61, 527–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mingels, C.; Bohn, K.P.; Rominger, A.; Afshar-Oromieh, A.; Alberts, I. Diagnostic accuracy of [18F]PSMA-1007 PET/CT in bio-chemical recurrence of prostate cancer. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2022, 49, 2436–2444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bodar, Y.J.L.; Zwezerijnen, B.G.J.C.; van der Voorn, P.J.; Jansen, B.H.E.; Smit, R.S.; Kol, S.Q.; Meijer, D.; de Bie, K.; Yaqub, M.; Windhorst, B.A.D.; et al. Prospective analysis of clinically significant prostate cancer detection with [18F]DCFPyL PET/MRI compared to multiparametric MRI: A comparison with the histopathology in the radical prostatectomy specimen, the ProStaPET study. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. 2022, 49, 1731–1742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Liu, Y.; Dong, Y.; Liu, J.; Zhang, X.; Lin, M.; Xu, B. Comparison between 18F-DCFPyL PET and MRI for the detection of transition zone prostate cancer. Prostate 2021, 81, 1329–1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Hartenbach, M.; Hartenbach, S.; Bechtloff, W.; Danz, B.; Kraft, K.; Klemenz, B.; Sparwasser, C.; Hacker, M. Combined PET/MRI im-proves diagnostic accuracy in patients with prostate cancer: A prospective diagnostic trial. Clin. Cancer Res. 2014, 20, 3244–3253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Polanec, S.H.; Andrzejewski, P.; Baltzer, P.A.T.; Helbich, T.H.; Stiglbauer, A.; Georg, D.; Karanikas, G.; Susani, M.; Wadsak, W.; Margreiter, M.; et al. Multiparametric [11C]Acetate positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment and staging of prostate cancer. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0180790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zanoni, L.; Bianchi, L.; Nanni, C.; Pultrone, C.; Giunchi, F.; Bossert, I.; Matti, A.; Schiavina, R.; Fiorentino, M.; Romagnoli, D.; et al. [18F]-Fluciclovine PET/CT for preoperative nodal staging in high-risk primary prostate cancer: Final results of a prospective trial. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. 2021, 49, 390–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Odewole, O.A.; Tade, F.I.; Nieh, P.T.; Savir-Baruch, B.; Jani, A.B.; Master, V.A.; Rossi, P.J.; Halkar, R.K.; Osunkoya, A.O.; Akin-Akintayo, O.; et al. Recurrent prostate cancer detection with anti-3-[18F]FACBC PET/CT: Com-parison with CT. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2016, 43, 1773–1783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Thoeny, H.C.; Barbieri, S.; Froehlich, J.M.; Turkbey, B.; Choyke, P.L. Functional and targeted lymph node imaging in prostate cancer: Current status and future challenges. Radiology 2017, 285, 728–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diagnostics 14 01315 g001
Figure 1. PRISM flow chart illustrates the process of identifying eligible studies for inclusion.
Figure 1. PRISM flow chart illustrates the process of identifying eligible studies for inclusion.
Diagnostics 14 01315 g001
Table 2. A summary of the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of radiolabelled 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT, 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI, and 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT used for prostate cancer.
Table 2. A summary of the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of radiolabelled 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT, 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI, and 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT used for prostate cancer.
Imaging ModalityNumber of StudiesAccuracy (%)Sensitivity (%)Specificity (%)
68Ga-PSMA PET/CT 1186 (64–96)80 (35–93)90 (71–98)
68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI788 (74–99)82 (50–96)86 (63–100)
18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT690 (81–99)78 (26–100)92 (87–98)
Mean (minimum–maximum).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Alshamrani, A.F.A. Diagnostic Accuracy of Molecular Imaging Techniques for Detecting Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. Diagnostics 2024, 14, 1315. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14131315

AMA Style

Alshamrani AFA. Diagnostic Accuracy of Molecular Imaging Techniques for Detecting Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. Diagnostics. 2024; 14(13):1315. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14131315

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alshamrani, Abdullah Fahad A. 2024. "Diagnostic Accuracy of Molecular Imaging Techniques for Detecting Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review" Diagnostics 14, no. 13: 1315. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14131315

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop