Pitfalls of FDG-PET in the prostate for the surgical oncologist

A 78-year-old man was referred for investigation of prostate cancer following incidental uptake on 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET). Despite normal PSA and benign digital rectal exam, he was referred for consideration of trans-perineal biopsy to exclude prostate cancer...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: O'Connor, Ellen, Teh, Jiasian, Bolton, Damien
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2020
Materias:
Oncology
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7262006/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32489895
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eucr.2020.101262
Descripción
Sumario:A 78-year-old man was referred for investigation of prostate cancer following incidental uptake on 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET). Despite normal PSA and benign digital rectal exam, he was referred for consideration of trans-perineal biopsy to exclude prostate cancer. It was only on review of imaging that it became clearly apparent that the 18F-FDG uptake was due to urinary tracer pooling in a trans-urethral resection cavity. Surgeons, oncologists and nuclear medicine physicians should be aware of this common pitfall in interpretation of 18F-FDG-PET in the prostate.

Ejemplares similares