Retrospective study demonstrates high sensitivity of PSMA PET/CT for detecting recurrent prostate cancer after focal therapy, indicating its value for restaging.
Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–targeted PET/CT (PSMA PET/CT) has become the first-line imaging modality used for staging and restaging prostate cancer. Its utility after minimally invasive focal therapy (high-intensity focused ultrasound, laser ablation, cryoablation) remains unclear. This study evaluated PSMA PET/CT for detecting and localizing recurrence after focal therapy. Methods: This retrospective single-center study included patients with prior focal therapy for prostate cancer who underwent 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT for suspected recurrence between 2016 and 2023 without intervening treatment. Three masked readers analyzed whole-body PET/CT images using a per-region (prostate, pelvic nodes, distant metastases) majority rule for per-patient positivity. Interreader agreement was determined using Fleiss κ. In a subcohort of 39 patients with both MRI and biopsy results available within 3 mo of PSMA PET/CT, per-patient and per-segment (12 prostate segments) accuracy was assessed. One masked reader evaluated PET/CT at 60 min (whole-body) and 90 min (pelvic) postinjection, and one prostate MRI expert independently read the MRI scans. Biopsy pathology-confirmed clinically significant prostate cancer, defined as International Society of Urological Pathology grade 2 or greater, served as the reference standard. Results: In total, 112 patients were included. PSMA PET/CT showed 82% positivity for intraprostatic recurrence, 15% for pelvic nodes, and 9% for distant metastases. Interreader agreement was moderate (κ = 0.4; 95% CI, 0.32–0.54). In the subcohort, per-patient sensitivity was 85% for PET vs. 82% for MRI. All cases with an SUVmax of 10 or greater had an ISUP grade group of 3 or greater. Conclusion: PSMA PET/CT effectively localizes prostate cancer recurrence after focal therapy, outperforming MRI on sensitivity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jafarvand et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: