1932

Abstract

In recent years, small-molecule inhibitors of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) labeled with radionuclides that allow for positron emission tomography (PET) imaging have been extensively studied in many clinical contexts in men with prostate cancer (PCa). The high sensitivity and specificity of these agents for identifying sites of PCa has quickly led to their widespread adoption as a de facto clinical standard of care throughout much of the world. PSMA-targeted PET radiotracers have been particularly well-studied in preoperatively staging men with high-risk PCa, evaluating biochemical recurrence following definitive therapy, and guiding metastasis-directed therapy in patients suspected of having oligorecurrent/oligometastatic disease. Furthermore, the expression of PSMA on the tumor neovasculature of many nonprostate malignancies has enabled a burgeoning subfield concentrated on delineating the potential utility of PSMA-targeted PET agents for imaging other cancers. In this review, we highlight the preclinical development of key small molecules that are now being clinically utilized for PCa imaging, discuss the roles of PSMA-targeted agents in guiding patient management, and consider the role these compounds may play in imaging nonprostate cancers.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-med-062117-073027
2019-01-27
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/med/70/1/annurev-med-062117-073027.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-med-062117-073027&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.  Rowe SP, Macura KJ, Ciarallo A et al. 2016. Comparison of prostate-specific membrane antigen-based 18F-DCFBC PET/CT to conventional imaging modalities for detection of hormone-naive and castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. J. Nucl. Med. 57:46–53
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.  Hara T, Kosaka N, Kishi H 1998. PET imaging of prostate cancer using carbon-11-choline. J. Nucl. Med. 39:990–95
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.  Murphy RC, Kawashima A, Peller PJ 2011. The utility of 11C-choline PET/CT for imaging prostate cancer: a pictorial guide. Am. J. Roentgenol. 196:1390–98
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.  Schuster DM, Votaw JR, Nieh PT et al. 2007. Initial experience with the radiotracer anti-1-amino-3–18F-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid with PET/CT in prostate carcinoma. J. Nucl. Med. 48:56–63
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.  Schuster DM, Savir-Baruch B, Nieh PT et al. 2011. Detection of recurrent prostate carcinoma with anti-1-amino-3–18F-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid PET/CT and 111In-capromab pendetide SPECT/CT. Radiology 259:852–61
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.  Zhang J, Niu G, Fan X et al. 2018. PET using a GRPR antagonist 68Ga-RM26 in healthy volunteers and prostate cancer patients. J. Nucl. Med. 59:922–28
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.  Wieser G, Mansi R, Grosu AL et al. 2014. Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of prostate cancer with a gastrin releasing peptide receptor antagonist—from mice to men. Theranostics 4:412–19
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.  Vargas HA, Wassberg C, Fox JJ et al. 2014. Bone metastases in castration-resistant prostate cancer: associations between morphologic CT patterns, glycolytic activity, and androgen receptor expression on PET and overall survival. Radiology 271:220–29
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9.  Cho SY, Gage KL, Mease RC et al. 2012. Biodistribution, tumor detection, and radiation dosimetry of 18F-DCFBC, a low-molecular-weight inhibitor of prostate-specific membrane antigen, in patients with metastatic prostate cancer. J. Nucl. Med. 53:1883–91
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.  Afshar-Oromieh A, Malcher A, Eder M et al. 2013. PET imaging with a [68Ga]gallium-labelled PSMA ligand for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: biodistribution in humans and first evaluation of tumour lesions. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 40:486–95
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.  Bostwick DG, Pacelli A, Blute M et al. 1998. Prostate specific membrane antigen expression in prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and adenocarcinoma: a study of 184 cases. Cancer 82:2256–61
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.  Sweat SD, Pacelli A, Murphy GP et al. 1998. Prostate-specific membrane antigen expression is greatest in prostate adenocarcinoma and lymph node metastases. Urology 52:637–40
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.  Perner S, Hofer MD, Kim R et al. 2007. Prostate-specific membrane antigen expression as a predictor of prostate cancer progression. Hum. Pathol. 38:696–701
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14.  Ross JS, Sheehan CE, Fisher HA et al. 2003. Correlation of primary tumor prostate-specific membrane antigen expression with disease recurrence in prostate cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 9:6357–62
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15.  Ghosh A, Heston WD 2004. Tumor target prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) and its regulation in prostate cancer. J. Cell Biochem. 91:528–39
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.  Kiess AP, Banerjee SR, Mease RC et al. 2015. Prostate-specific membrane antigen as a target for cancer imaging and therapy. Q. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 59:241–68
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.  Kozikowski AP, Nan F, Conti P et al. 2001. Design of remarkably simple, yet potent urea-based inhibitors of glutamate carboxypeptidase II (NAALADase). J. Med. Chem. 44:298–301
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.  Kozikowski AP, Zhang J, Nan F et al. 2004. Synthesis of urea-based inhibitors as active site probes of glutamate carboxypeptidase II: efficacy as analgesic agents. J. Med. Chem. 47:1729–38
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.  Pomper MG, Musachio JL, Zhang J et al. 2002. 11C-MCG: synthesis, uptake selectivity, and primate PET of a probe for glutamate carboxypeptidase II (NAALADase). Mol. Imag. 1:96–101
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.  Foss CA, Mease RC, Fan H et al. 2005. Radiolabeled small-molecule ligands for prostate-specific membrane antigen: in vivo imaging in experimental models of prostate cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 11:4022–28
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.  Mease RC, Dusich CL, Foss CA et al. 2008. N-[N-[(S)-1,3-Dicarboxypropyl]carbamoyl]-4-[18F]fluorobenzyl-L-cysteine, [18F]DCFBC: a new imaging probe for prostate cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 14:3036–43
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.  Gorin MA, Pomper MG, Rowe SP 2016. PSMA-targeted imaging of prostate cancer: the best is yet to come. BJU Int 117:715–16
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.  Sanchez-Crespo A 2013. Comparison of gallium-68 and fluorine-18 imaging characteristics in positron emission tomography. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 76:55–62
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24.  Ganguly T, Dannoon S, Hopkins MR et al. 2015. A high-affinity [18F]-labeled phosphoramidate peptidomimetic PSMA-targeted inhibitor for PET imaging of prostate cancer. Nucl. Med. Biol. 42:780–87
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.  Lesche R, Kettschau G, Gromov AV et al. 2014. Preclinical evaluation of BAY 1075553, a novel 18F-labelled inhibitor of prostate-specific membrane antigen for PET imaging of prostate cancer. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 41:89–101
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.  Beheshti M, Kunit T, Haim S et al. 2015. BAY 1075553 PET-CT for staging and restaging prostate cancer patients: comparison with [18F] fluorocholine PET-CT (phase I study). Mol. Imag. Biol. 17:424–33
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.  Banerjee SR, Foss CA, Castanares M et al. 2008. Synthesis and evaluation of technetium-99m- and rhenium-labeled inhibitors of the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA). J. Med. Chem. 51:4504–17
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.  Banerjee SR, Pullambhatla M, Byun Y et al. 2010. 68Ga-labeled inhibitors of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) for imaging prostate cancer. J. Med. Chem. 53:5333–41
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.  Eder M, Schafer M, Bauder-Wust U et al. 2012. 68Ga-complex lipophilicity and the targeting property of a urea-based PSMA inhibitor for PET imaging. Bioconjug. Chem. 23:688–97
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30.  Chen Y, Pullambhatla M, Foss CA et al. 2011. 2-(3-{1-Carboxy-5-[(6-[18F]fluoro-pyridine-3-carbonyl)-amino]-pentyl}-ureido)-pen tanedioic acid, [18F]DCFPyL, a PSMA-based PET imaging agent for prostate cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 17:7645–53
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.  Giesel FL, Cardinale J, Schafer M et al. 2016. 18F-Labelled PSMA-1007 shows similarity in structure, biodistribution and tumour uptake to the theragnostic compound PSMA-617. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imag. 43:1929–30
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.  Cardinale J, Schafer M, Benesova M et al. 2017. Preclinical evaluation of 18F-PSMA-1007, a new prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand for prostate cancer imaging. J. Nucl. Med. 58:425–31
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.  Giesel FL, Hadaschik B, Cardinale J et al. 2017. F-18 labelled PSMA-1007: biodistribution, radiation dosimetry and histopathological validation of tumor lesions in prostate cancer patients. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imag. 44:678–88
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34.  Cookson MS, Aus G, Burnett AL et al. 2007. Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American Urological Association Prostate Guidelines for Localized Prostate Cancer Update Panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes. J. Urol. 177:540–45
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.  Roach M 3rd, Hanks G, Thames H Jr et al. 2006. Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 65:965–74
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.  Trock BJ, Han M, Freedland SJ et al. 2008. Prostate cancer-specific survival following salvage radiotherapy versus observation in men with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. JAMA 299:2760–69
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.  Afshar-Oromieh A, Zechmann CM, Malcher A et al. 2014. Comparison of PET imaging with a 68Ga-labelled PSMA ligand and 18F-choline-based PET/CT for the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imag. 41:11–20
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.  Morigi JJ, Stricker PD, van Leeuwen PJ et al. 2015. Prospective comparison of 18F-fluoromethylcholine versus 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in prostate cancer patients who have rising PSA after curative treatment and are being considered for targeted therapy. J. Nucl. Med. 56:1185–90
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39.  Schwenck J, Rempp H, Reischl G et al. 2017. Comparison of 68Ga-labelled PSMA-11 and 11C-choline in the detection of prostate cancer metastases by PET/CT. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imag. 44:92–101
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40.  Eiber M, Maurer T, Souvatzoglou M et al. 2015. Evaluation of hybrid 68Ga-PSMA ligand PET/CT in 248 patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J. Nucl. Med. 56:668–74
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.  Afshar-Oromieh A, Avtzi E, Giesel FL et al. 2015. The diagnostic value of PET/CT imaging with the 68Ga-labelled PSMA ligand HBED-CC in the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imag. 42:197–209
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.  Afshar-Oromieh A, Holland-Letz T, Giesel FL et al. 2017. Diagnostic performance of 68Ga-PSMA-11 (HBED-CC) PET/CT in patients with recurrent prostate cancer: evaluation in 1007 patients. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imag. 44:1258–68
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43.  Dietlein M, Kobe C, Kuhnert G et al. 2015. Comparison of [18F]DCFPyL and [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC for PSMA-PET imaging in patients with relapsed prostate cancer. Mol. Imag. Biol. 17:575–84
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.  Dietlein F, Kobe C, Neubauer S et al. 2017. PSA-stratified performance of 18F- and 68Ga-PSMA PET in patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. J. Nucl. Med. 58:947–52
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45.  Rauscher I, Duwel C, Haller B et al. 2018. Efficacy, predictive factors, and prediction nomograms for 68Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen-ligand positron-emission tomography/computed tomography in early biochemical recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 73:656–61
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46.  Albisinni S, Artigas C, Aoun F et al. 2017. Clinical impact of 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in patients with prostate cancer with rising prostate-specific antigen after treatment with curative intent: preliminary analysis of a multidisciplinary approach. BJU Int 120:197–203
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47.  Bluemel C, Linke F, Herrmann K et al. 2016. Impact of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT on salvage radiotherapy planning in patients with prostate cancer and persisting PSA values or biochemical relapse after prostatectomy. EJNMMI Res 6:78
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48.  Dewes S, Schiller K, Sauter K et al. 2016. Integration of 68Ga-PSMA-PET imaging in planning of primary definitive radiotherapy in prostate cancer: a retrospective study. Radiat. Oncol. 11:73
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 49.  van Leeuwen PJ, Stricker P, Hruby G et al. 2016. 68Ga-PSMA has a high detection rate of prostate cancer recurrence outside the prostatic fossa in patients being considered for salvage radiation treatment. BJU Int 117:732–39
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50.  Budaus L, Leyh-Bannurah SR, Salomon G et al. 2016. Initial experience of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT imaging in high-risk prostate cancer patients prior to radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 69:393–96
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 51.  Herlemann A, Wenter V, Kretschmer A et al. 2016. 68Ga-PSMA positron emission tomography/computed tomography provides accurate staging of lymph node regions prior to lymph node dissection in patients with prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 70:553–57
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52.  Maurer T, Gschwend JE, Rauscher I et al. 2016. Diagnostic efficacy of 68gallium-PSMA positron emission tomography compared to conventional imaging for lymph node staging of 130 consecutive patients with intermediate to high risk prostate cancer. J. Urol. 195:1436–43
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53.  van Leeuwen PJ, Emmett L, Ho B et al. 2017. Prospective evaluation of 68gallium-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography for preoperative lymph node staging in prostate cancer. BJU Int 119:209–15
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 54.  Gorin MA, Rowe SP, Patel HD et al. 2018. Prostate specific membrane antigen targeted 18F-DCFPyL positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for the preoperative staging of high risk prostate cancer: results of a prospective, Phase II, single center study. J. Urol. 199:126–32
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 55.  Haseebuddin M, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA et al. 2013. 11C-acetate PET/CT before radical prostatectomy: nodal staging and treatment failure prediction. J. Nucl. Med. 54:699–706
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56.  Rowe SP, Gage KL, Faraj SF et al. 2015. 18F-DCFBC PET/CT for PSMA-based detection and characterization of primary prostate cancer. J. Nucl. Med. 56:1003–10
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 57.  Eiber M, Weirich G, Holzapfel K et al. 2016. Simultaneous 68Ga-PSMA HBED-CC PET/MRI improves the localization of primary prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 70:829–36
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58.  Bauman G, Martin P, Thiessen JD et al. 2016. [18F]-DCFPyL positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging for localization of dominant intraprostatic foci: first experience. Eur. Urol. Focus pii:S2405-4569(16)30147-X
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 59.  Lopci E, Saita A, Lazzeri M et al. 2018. 68Ga-PSMA positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for primary diagnosis of prostate cancer in men with contraindications to or negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a prospective observational study. J. Urol. 200:95–103
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 60.  Reyes DK, Pienta KJ 2015. The biology and treatment of oligometastatic cancer. Oncotarget 6:8491–524
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 61.  Rowe SP, Hawasli H, Fishman EK et al. 2016. Advances in the treatment of oligometastatic disease: what the radiologist needs to know to guide patient management. Acad. Radiol. 23:326–28
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 62.  Joice GA, Rowe SP, Pienta KJ et al. 2017. Oligometastatic prostate cancer: shaping the definition with molecular imaging and an improved understanding of tumor biology. Curr. Opin. Urol. 27:533–41
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 63.  Rowe SP, Macura KJ, Mena E et al. 2016. PSMA-based [18F]DCFPyL PET/CT is superior to conventional imaging for lesion detection in patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Mol. Imag. Biol. 18:411–19
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 64.  Murphy DG, Sweeney CJ, Tombal B 2017. “Gotta catch ’em all,” or do we? Pokemet approach to metastatic prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 72:1–3
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 65.  Ost P, Jereczek-Fossa BA, As NV et al. 2016. Progression-free survival following stereotactic body radiotherapy for oligometastatic prostate cancer treatment-naive recurrence: a multi-institutional analysis. Eur. Urol. 69:9–12
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 66.  Radwan N, Phillips R, Ross A et al. 2017. A phase II randomized trial of Observation versus stereotactic ablative RadiatIon for OLigometastatic prostate CancEr (ORIOLE). BMC Cancer 17:453
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 67.  Siriwardana A, Thompson J, van Leeuwen PJ et al. 2017. Initial multicentre experience of 68gallium-PSMA PET/CT guided robot-assisted salvage lymphadenectomy: acceptable safety profile but oncological benefit appears limited. BJU Int 120:673–81
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 68.  Henkenberens C, von Klot CA, Ross TL et al. 2016. 68Ga-PSMA ligand PET/CT-based radiotherapy in locally recurrent and recurrent oligometastatic prostate cancer: early efficacy after primary therapy. Strahlenther. Onkol. 192:431–39
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 69.  Henkenberens C, von Klot CA, Ross TL et al. 2017. 68Ga-PSMA ligand PET/CT-based radiotherapy for lymph node relapse of prostate cancer after primary therapy delays initiation of systemic therapy. Anticancer Res 37:1273–79
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 70.  Kulkarni HR, Singh A, Langbein T et al. 2018. Theranostics of prostate cancer: from molecular imaging to precision molecular radiotherapy targeting the prostate specific membrane antigen. Br. J. Radiol. 91:20180308
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 71.  Broos WAM, Kocken M, van der Zant FM et al. 2018. Metastasized 18F-DCFPyL-negative prostatic adenocarcinoma without neuroendocrine differentiation. Clin. Nucl. Med. 43:120–22
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 72.  Tosoian JJ, Gorin MA, Rowe SP et al. 2017. Correlation of PSMA-targeted 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT findings with immunohistochemical and genomic data in a patient with metastatic neuroendocrine prostate cancer. Clin. Genitourin. Cancer 15:e65–68
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 73.  Rahbar K, Ahmadzadehfar H, Kratochwil C et al. 2017. German multicenter study investigating 177Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy in advanced prostate cancer patients. J. Nucl. Med. 58:85–90
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 74.  Hofman MS, Violet J, Hicks RJ et al. 2018. [177Lu]-PSMA-617 radionuclide treatment in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (LuPSMA trial): a single-centre, single-arm, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 19:825–33
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 75.  Kratochwil C, Schmidt K, Afshar-Oromieh A et al. 2018. Targeted alpha therapy of mCRPC: dosimetry estimate of 213bismuth-PSMA-617. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imag. 45:31–37
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 76.  Kratochwil C, Bruchertseifer F, Rathke H et al. 2017. Targeted alpha-therapy of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with 225Ac-PSMA-617: dosimetry estimate and empiric dose finding. J. Nucl. Med. 58:1624–31
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 77.  Salas Fragomeni RA, Amir T, Sheikhbahaei S et al. 2018. Imaging of nonprostate cancers using PSMA-targeted radiotracers: rationale, current state of the field, and a call to arms. J. Nucl. Med. 59:871–77
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 78.  Chang SS, O'Keefe DS, Bacich DJ et al. 1999. Prostate-specific membrane antigen is produced in tumor-associated neovasculature. Clin. Cancer Res. 5:2674–81
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 79.  Nimmagadda S, Pullambhatla M, Chen Y et al. 2018. Low-level endogenous PSMA expression in nonprostatic tumor xenografts is sufficient for in vivo tumor targeting and imaging. J. Nucl. Med. 59:486–93
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 80.  Backhaus P, Noto B, Avramovic N et al. 2018. Targeting PSMA by radioligands in non-prostate disease-current status and future perspectives. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imag. 45:860–77
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 81.  Campbell SP, Baras AS, Ball MW et al. 2018. Low levels of PSMA expression limit the utility of 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT for imaging urothelial carcinoma. Ann. Nucl. Med. 32:69–74
    [Google Scholar]
  82. 82.  Demirci E, Ocak M, Kabasakal L et al. 2014. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT imaging of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imag. 41:1461–62
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 83.  Rowe SP, Gorin MA, Hammers HJ et al. 2016. Detection of 18F-FDG PET/CT occult lesions with 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT in a patient with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Clin. Nucl. Med. 41:83–85
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 84.  Einspieler I, Tauber R, Maurer T et al. 2016. 68Ga prostate-specific membrane antigen uptake in renal cell cancer lymph node metastases. Clin. Nucl. Med. 41:e261–62
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 85.  Rowe SP, Gorin MA, Hammers HJ et al. 2015. Imaging of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma with PSMA-targeted 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT. Ann. Nucl. Med. 29:877–82
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 86.  Sawicki LM, Buchbender C, Boos J et al. 2017. Diagnostic potential of PET/CT using a 68Ga-labelled prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand in whole-body staging of renal cell carcinoma: initial experience. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imag. 44:102–7
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 87.  Rhee H, Blazak J, Tham CM et al. 2016. Pilot study: use of gallium-68 PSMA PET for detection of metastatic lesions in patients with renal tumour. EJNMMI Res 6:76
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 88.  Siva S, Callahan J, Pryor D et al. 2017. Utility of 68Ga prostate specific membrane antigen–positron emission tomography in diagnosis and response assessment of recurrent renal cell carcinoma. J. Med. Imag. Radiat. Oncol. 61:372–78
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 89.  Gorin MA, Rowe SP, Hooper JE et al. 2017. PSMA-targeted 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT imaging of clear cell renal cell carcinoma: results from a rapid autopsy. Eur. Urol. 71:145–46
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 90.  Sathekge M, Modiselle M, Vorster M et al. 2015. 68Ga-PSMA imaging of metastatic breast cancer. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imag. 42:1482–83
    [Google Scholar]
  91. 91.  Sathekge M, Lengana T, Modiselle M et al. 2017. 68Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC PET imaging in breast carcinoma patients. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imag. 44:689–94
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 92.  Salas Fragomeni RA, Menke JR, Holdhoff M et al. 2017. Prostate-specific membrane antigen-targeted imaging with [18F]DCFPyL in high-grade gliomas. Clin. Nucl. Med. 42:e433–35
    [Google Scholar]
  93. 93.  Sasikumar A, Joy A, Pillai MR et al. 2017. Diagnostic value of 68Ga PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging of brain tumors—preliminary analysis. Clin. Nucl. Med. 42:e41–48
    [Google Scholar]
  94. 94.  Pyka T, Weirich G, Einspieler I et al. 2016. 68Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC PET for differential diagnosis of suggestive lung lesions in patients with prostate cancer. J. Nucl. Med. 57:367–71
    [Google Scholar]
  95. 95.  Sheikhbahaei S, Afshar-Oromieh A, Eiber M et al. 2017. Pearls and pitfalls in clinical interpretation of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted PET imaging. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imag. 44:2117–36
    [Google Scholar]
  96. 96.  Hofman MS, Hicks RJ, Maurer T et al. 2018. Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET: clinical utility in prostate cancer, normal patterns, pearls, and pitfalls. Radiographics 38:200–17
    [Google Scholar]
  97. 97.  Gupta M, Choudhury PS, Gupta G et al. 2016. Metastasis in urothelial carcinoma mimicking prostate cancer metastasis in Ga-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography–computed tomography in a case of synchronous malignancy. Indian J. Nucl. Med. 31:222–24
    [Google Scholar]
  98. 98.  Rowe SP, Pienta KJ, Pomper MG et al. 2018. Proposal for a structured reporting system for prostate-specific membrane antigen-targeted PET imaging: PSMA-RADS version 1.0. J. Nucl. Med. 59:479–85
    [Google Scholar]
  99. 99.  Rowe SP, Pienta KJ, Pomper MG et al. 2018. PSMA-RADS version 1.0: a step towards standardizing the interpretation and reporting of PSMA-targeted PET imaging studies. Eur. Urol. 73:485–87
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 100.  Werner RA, Solnes LB, Javadi MS et al. 2018. SSTR-RADS version 1.0 as a reporting system for SSTR-PET imaging and selection of potential PRRT candidates: a proposed standardization framework. J. Nucl. Med. 59:1085–91
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-med-062117-073027
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-med-062117-073027
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error