Abstract Purpose: Although 18F-FDG-PET/CT is helpful in defining many types of cancer, localized prostate cancer should not be treated with this technique. In this study, accidental 18F-FDG uptake in the prostate is described using multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI). Methods and Materials: While 18F-FDG-PET/CT is useful for characterizing a variety of cancers, it is not advised for prostate cancer that is localized. This work investigates the use of mpMRI to describe incidental 18F-FDG uptake in the prostate.mpMRI included T2-weighted (T2W), dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) sequences. Patients were classified according to PI-RADS (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System) version 2.1 by an experienced uroradiologist, and 18F-FDG-PET was evaluated to determine whether the area of involvement on CT had a counterpart in mpMRI. A biopsy was performed on 30 of the 92 patients.These patients' maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) 6 < and ≥ 6, PS(PSA) density 0.15< and ≥ 0.15, PSA level, uptake pattern (focal involvement/diffuse involvement), and PI-RADS scores were compared. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: In the study, 92 patients with incidental 18F-FDG-PET/CT prostate uptake were examined. Median age was 66, PSA median was 3.6 ng/ml (range: 0-3198 ng/ml). Notably, in 70.6% of cases, PET/CT uptake didn't correlate with mp-MRI findings. Among PI-RADS 3-4-5 patients (29.3%), there was a correlation. Biopsies in 30 patients revealed 43.3% benign, 56.7% malignant. Significant differences between benign and malignant cases were observed in PSA density, PI-RADS scores, and PSA levels (p < 0.05), while SUVmax and uptake pattern were not significant. Conclusions: Our study showed that incidental 18F-FDG-PET/CT prostate uptake was detected and that high PSA density values, PI-RADS scores, and PSA values, such as in routine patients, and not PET-CT findings such as SUVmax and uptake pattern, were more predictive of malignancy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Özdemir et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: