Evaluating the diagnostic performance of 99mTc-HYNIC-PSMA-11 SPECT/CT in prostate cancer, indicating comparable lesion detection and dosimetry.
Objectives The diagnostic performance of 99mTc-HYNIC-PSMA-11 whole body SPECT/CT versus 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT was evaluated in prostate cancer patients. Methods As a part of the diagnostic workup, all the prostate cancer (PCa) patients (n = 10; mean age 66.4 ± 9.6 years) underwent whole-body 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT followed by serial whole body (anterior and posterior) 99mTc-HYNIC-PSMA-11 imaging The serial whole body imaging was performed at multiple time points of 10 min, 2 h, 4 h, 6 h, 24 h and the whole body SPECT/CT was acquired at 3 h. The whole-body SPECT/CT data was analyzed for lesions detection and to calculate the standardized uptake values (SUVmax) for 99mTc-HYNIC-PSMA-11 avid lesions using the Q- Metrix software. These values were compared with the corresponding SUVmax values obtained from 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT. The serial whole body imaging data were used for estimating the radiation absorbed doses (mSv/MBq) to various organs using the MIRD schema and the OLINDA/EXM software. Results 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT identified a total of 64 metastatic lesions, while 99mTc- HYNIC-PSMA-11 SPECT/CT detected 49/64 metastatic lesions, presenting a sensitivity of 76.6%. Notably, the mean SUVmax values for 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT and 99mTc-HYNIC- PSMA-11 were comparable and a highly significant positive correlation (r > 0.93; p < 0.01) The average absorbed doses to the salivary glands, lungs, kidneys, urinary bladder, and liver were found to be comparable with 99mTc-MDP bone scanning. Conclusion The diagnostic performance of whole-body 99mTc-HYNIC PSMA-11 SPECT/CT is fairly comparable to 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT and offers a favorable dosimetry indicating its potential for PCa evaluation Advances in Knowledge 99mTc-PSMA-11 SPECT/CT may be an alternative and cost-effective tool for evaluation of initial PSMA disease burden as well as for response evaluation to PSMA targeted therapies
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Monika et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: