Skip to main content
Download PDF

PSMA-PET based radiotherapy: a review of initial experiences, survey on current practice and future perspectives

Radiation Oncology volume 13, Article number: 90 (2018) Cite this article

Abstract

68Gallium prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) ligand positron emission tomography (PET) is an increasingly used imaging modality in prostate cancer, especially in cases of tumor recurrence after curative intended therapy. Owed to the novelty of the PSMA-targeting tracers, clinical evidence on the value of PSMA-PET is moderate but rapidly increasing. State of the art imaging is pivotal for radiotherapy treatment planning as it may affect dose prescription, target delineation and use of concomitant therapy.

This review summarizes the evidence on PSMA-PET imaging from a radiation oncologist’s point of view. Additionally a short survey containing twelve examples of patients and 6 additional questions was performed in seven mayor academic centers with experience in PSMA ligand imaging and the findings are reported here.

Background

Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging with 68Gallium-labeled prostate specific membrane antigen ligands (PSMA) for prostate cancer patients has entered clinical practice for staging prior to radiotherapeutic treatment, especially for high-risk tumors and patients suffering biochemical recurrence after surgery. As PET is usually performed in combination with computed tomography (CT) for attenuation correction and anatomical information, the term PSMA PET is subsequently used as an abbreviation for this combined examination, unless otherwise stated. PSMA-PET has a higher specificity and sensitivity for the detection of tumor lesions compared to stand alone CT, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and Choline-PET. It offers promising opportunities for treatment individualization [1, 2]. PSMA-PET (CT/MRI) was introduced in 2012 [3,4,5]. Its clinical use and the scientific interest in PSMA-PET imaging increased almost exponentially as suggested by a Pubmed search using the terms PSMA PET (Fig. 1). Due to the relative novelty of this radiotracer there is a steadily increasing clinical evidence for the implementation of PSMA PET for clinical decision making and radiotherapeutic target volume delineation. Despite sparse high-grade evidence, it was shown that PSMA-PET imaging had influence on radiotherapy treatment in more than 48% of high risk patients (treatment-naïve and recurrent prostate cancer) [6]. In two recent publications with 161 and 270 patients suffering biochemical recurrence Calais and colleagues reported intended treatment management changes in more than 50% of patients. In case of early biochemical recurrence (defined as PSA < 1.0 ng/ml) there was still a major impact of further treatment planning in 19% of patients [7, 8].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Number of results for the search term “psma pet” in pubmed.gov with annual publication date restrictions starting from January 2014 until July 2017 (x-axis) and logarithmic depiction of cumulative publications (y-axis)

Full size image

This review focuses on the use of PSMA-PET for radiotherapy planning and treatment, based on the clinically most widely used 68Gallium-labeled PSMA ligands. The probably most important issues regarding PSMA-PET for radiation oncologist are: When to use PSMA-PET imaging for treatment planning/ staging and how to optimally adapt radiotherapy planning to PSMA-PET findings. The limitations and caveats of 68Gallium-PSMA ligand and methods to improve imaging quality and detection rates by alternative acquisition protocols or PSMA conjugates are only briefly mentioned as they were already comprehensively discussed elsewhere [9,10,11,12].

PSMA-PET for primary staging and definitive radiotherapy

The role of PSMA-PET for primary staging of prostate cancer is less well defined as the potential important role for biochemical recurrence after treatment with curative intent. In a prospective multicenter assessment on treatment modification by PSMA-PET in 108 treatment-naïve intermediate and high-risk patients, PSMA-PET led to treatment modifications in 21% [13]. Surprisingly, there was no statistical significant difference of treatment alterations between intermediate and high-risk patients in this largest published prospective cohort of primary staged patients. Dewes and colleagues reported on 15 patients treated with definitive radiotherapy. The radiotherapeutic concept was changed in 33% of patients due to the PSMA-PET CT, mostly leading to additional target volumes/ dose escalation due to detected pelvic lymph node metastases [14].

In a meta-analysis on the role of PSMA-PET for primary staging of prostate cancer, von Eyben and colleagues identified seven studies, mostly retrospective analyses of consecutive patients. PSMA-expressing lesions were only identified in 203 of 273 patients (74%): 60% had lesions confined to the prostate, 4% pelvic lymph nodes and 10% presented lesions in more than one site, i.e. treatment was probably adapted in around 14% of patients [2]. This intriguingly low number of PSMA expression within the primary tumor lesions requires a closer look at the mentioned publications. Some of the seven reviewed studies apparently only received dissection of pelvic lymph nodes with unknown treatment status of the primary tumor: Budäus et al. focused on lymph node detection rates and didn’t explicitly report on primary tumors, additionally even patients with prostate specific antigen (PSA) values as low as 1.4 ng/ml were included [15]. Similarly, the analyses of Herlemann et al. and van Leeuwen et al. were restricted to lymph node detection [16, 17]. Fendler et al. reported a detection rate of intraprostatic PMSA lesions of 90% (19 of 21 patients) [18]. Maurer et al. reported a positive detection rate within the prostate of 91.6% in an analysis of 130 patients [19]. Rhee et al. reported lesion based analyses only [20]. The probably most interesting study from a radiation oncologists perspective from Zamboglou et al. reported PSMA-PET based delineation. In 22 of 23 patients a gross tumor volume could be generated by the use of PSMA-PET: Only in one patient no target volume could be delineated based on PSMA PET. This means 95% of patients would have had potentially suspicious PSMA uptake within the prostate [21].

In summary these data show that the detection rate of intraprostatic PSMA-positive lesions should be up to 95% (when primary lesions are separately analyzed as discussed above). Nevertheless, sensitivity for detection of every intraprostatic cancer focus (i.e. pathological confirmed tumor localization) remains relatively low with a pooled sensitivity around 70% and a specificity around 84% [2]. Rhee, Eiber, Zamboglou and colleagues compared multiparametric MRI, PSMA-PET and detection of histologic lesions: PSMA-PET outweighed MRI, but in a relevant number of cases MRI and PSMA-PET delivered complementary information on localization of lesions [20, 22, 23]. Since PSMA uptake correlated with features of tumor aggressiveness like extracapsular infiltration or Gleason score, a miss of small or lower grade intraprostatic lesions may be acceptable for radiotherapy treatment planning [18], as PET volumes would currently only be used to deliver a boost dose within the prostate. Poorly differentiated prostate cancer cells are known to be more radioresistant than well differentiated ones, hence higher Gleason scores were associated with markers of radioresistance and increased rates of local recurrences after primary radiotherapy in some but not all studies [24,25,26,27]. Therefore, higher radiation doses (e.g. by a PET based boost) are potentially only needed for tumors showing aggressive features while the lower (standard) dose to the surrounding prostate should be sufficient to treat small or low grade lesions.

The concept of biological guided dose escalation (i.e. prescription of radiation dose according to voxelwise PET tracer uptake) was first propagated more than 10 years ago [28]. Most studies on PET guided dose-painting focused on 18F-fluorodesoxyglucose (FDG) or hypoxia PET tracers. However, many concerns have been raised about the utility of the latter one for dose-painting, as the lesion to background ratio is usually low and stability of the tracer distribution within the tumor doubtful. This may be a reason why no practice changing studies on dose-painting approaches have been published so far. PSMA ligands seem to be promising tracers for radiotherapeutic dose-escalation as the correlation with histopathological findings is relatively high [18, 23, 29]. Dose-escalation for definitive treatment of prostate cancer has shown to provide relevant improvement of progression free survival, albeit at the cost of higher early and potentially more pronounced late toxicities [30, 31]. In a study by Budäus and colleagues intraprostatic foci were correctly predicted by PSMA-PET imaging before radical prostatectomy in 93% of patients in an analysis of 30 patients [15]. Semi-automatic PSMA contouring with an intraprostatic threshold of 30% of the intraprostatic SUVmax, used for gross tumor delineation, was proven to be technically feasible and would be relatively easy reproducible e.g. within a multi-center trial [32]. Additionally, the level of PSMA ligand uptake correlated with established risk factors like Gleason or d’Amico risk groups [33] and histological studies proved that cellular PSMA expression and PET uptake correlated with features of tumor aggressiveness [34]. Multi-parametric dose-painting for prostate cancer using MRI and PET information is technically feasible; however, MRI and PET often show a relatively large overlap. Furthermore, it remains unknown if the additional information of MRI and PET imaging adds information for treatment planning which would be clinically meaningful [35, 36]. A planning study on PSMA-PET based dose-escalation within sub-volumes of the prostate by Zamboglou and colleagues showed a promising increase of tumor control probability, without negatively affecting normal tissue complication probabilities in modeled patients [32].

Although PSMA-PET has higher detection rates of lymph node metastases compared to conventional imaging or Choline-PET, due to the inherent limitation of PET imaging, microscopic spread or affected small volume lymph nodes are potentially missed by PET imaging. Pooled comparison with surgical specimens revealed a high specificity of 97%, but a moderate sensitivity of around 61% [2]. However, sensitivity is improved compared to CT, MRI or Choline-PET imaging [37,38,39,40,41]. One study reported a median diameter of false-negative lymph nodes (i.e. PSMA-PET negative but histopathological positive) of only 1.3 mm [42]. However, a negative finding in PSMA-PET is not able to rule out metastatic spread within tiny lymph nodes.

For the detection of distant (bone) metastases, PSMA-PET has a higher detection rate than standard bone scintigraphy regarding lesion number [43]. Additional bone scans seem to be dispensable if a PSMA-PET was performed [44].

PSMA-PET for PSA persistence or biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy

Salvage radiotherapy for biochemical recurrent disease should be performed as early as possible [45,46,47]. However, detection rates for PSMA-PET depend highly on PSA levels. While salvage radiotherapy should optimally be initiated with PSA levels < 0.5 ng/ml [47], the rate of PSMA positive tumor manifestation is relatively low in this PSA range. Afshar-Oromieh and collegues reported on 1007 consecutive patients and found PSMA-positive lesions in 48% for PSA values ≤0.5 ng/ml and 73% for PSA values between 0.5 ng/ml and 1.0 ng/ml [48], similarly Eiber and colleagues reported a positive detection rate of 57.9% [49]. Rauscher and colleagues recently published data of 272 patients with early biochemical recurrence. PSMA positive lesions were evident in 55% of patients with PSA values between 0.2 and 0.5 ng/ml and 74% of patients with PSA values between 0.5 and 1.0 ng/ml [50]. Other studies with smaller sample sizes reported a positive detection rate of 44% for PSA values < 1 ng/ml and 48% for PSA values < 0.8 ng/ml [51, 52]. Therefore, based on the largest series of patients from Afshar-Oromieh and collegues, PSMA-PET should probably be performed in case of PSA levels > 0.5 ng/ml due to the relatively high detection rates of 70% or more. However, in some cases PSMA-PET detects lesions even in patients with very low PSA values: An analysis of 70 patients reported relatively high detection rates of 58% even for PSA values between 0.20–0.29 ng/ml [53]. A limitation of these studies is that patients receiving salvage radiotherapy for biochemical recurrence were not separately analyzed from patients receiving salvage radiotherapy for postoperative persisting PSA levels. Additionally, detailed information on concomitant ADT use was often missing. In cases of very high risk situations for regional or distant spread, e.g. R0 resection and persisting PSA values, PSMA-PET might be performed even with PSA values < 0.5 ng/ml. This pre-selection of patients with low risk for isolated local recurrence may be useful since detection of small lesions around the former prostate gland can be difficult due to the high urinary bladder spillover [9]. This constraint can only partially be resolved by images at later time points (tracer dilution).

PSMA-PET leads to radiotherapy treatment modification in up to 59% of cases presenting with biochemical recurrence at the radiation oncology department, as reported in a recent publication that included 100 patients with a median PSA level of 1.0 ng/ml [54]. Similar rates of radiotherapy adaptation were found in other publications with smaller sample sizes [6, 41, 55]. Interestingly, PSMA-positive lymph nodes would not be covered by delineation of the pelvic lymphatic drainage according to RTOG lymph node target volume recommendations in up to 40% of cases [56, 57]. The ever increasing experience with PSMA-PET imaging may on the long run lead to alterations of the recommended pelvic target volume delineation.

A current Australian study reported a cohort of 164 patients referred for salvage radiotherapy. PSA levels were between 0.05 and 1 ng/ml and PSMA positive lesions were detected in 61%. PSA response after salvage radiotherapy in patients not receiving androgen deprivation therapy was highest in case of missing evidence of PET lesions or disease limited to the prostate fossa, with 86 and 83% respectively. Nodal involvement reduced response rate to 62% (after nodal irradiation) and distant metastases further reduced post-radiotherapeutic response to 30% [58]. However, this may only be true in case of relatively low PSA values up to 1 ng/ml, as another publication that included patients with higher PSA values reported a potential unfavourable PSA response after radiotherapy limited to the prostatic region in case of negative PSMA findings for these patients [59].

Table 1 summarizes the current literature on biochemical response after PSMA guided radiotherapy. Although low patient numbers and a short follow-up are common limitations to all studies, some cautious conclusions may already be drawn: For low PSA values, salvage radiotherapy of the prostate fossa should not be omitted in case of PSMA-negativity. The probability of lasting PSA response after radiotherapy is probably highest for local recurrence, intermediate for regional and distant lymph node recurrences and lowest for bone metastases. Nevertheless, some patients with distant metastases seem to present an intermediate-term PSA response. At the moment, it is not predictable which patients with distant metastases benefit most likely from high-dose PSMA based radiotherapy.

Table 1 First reports on biochemical response following PSMA based radiotherapy after prior radical treatment of the prostate
Full size table

PSMA-PET for the treatment of (oligo-)metastatic prostate cancer

The concept of oligometastases was introduced by Hellman and Weichselbaum in 1995. They stated that “as effective chemotherapy becomes more widely applicable, there should be another group of patients with oligometastases. These are patients who had widespread metastases that were mostly eradicated by systemic agents, the chemotherapy having failed to destroy those remaining because of the number of tumor cells, the presence of drug-resistant cells, or the tumor foci being located in some pharmacologically privileged site” [60].

Due to the high detection rate of prostate cancer manifestations, PSMA-PET seems to be highly promising for detection and treatment of oligometastatic disease. First retrospective data on the treatment of oligometastases was published by Habl et al.: They analyzed 15 patients with a total of 20 bone metastases who underwent high-dose stereotactic radiotherapy and reported a median biochemical progression free survival of 6.9 months [61]. Several prospective studies on the role of radiotherapy to oligometastatic lesions are currently recruiting [62].

PSMA based irradiation of gross PSMA-positive tumor lesions may even have a potential to restore hormone-response: PSMA expression is upregulated after androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and higher expressed in biological more aggressive tumors [63]. Selective pressure on tumor cells by ADT may lead to (oligo-) progressive high PSMA expressing disease [64]. A recent publication reported one case of restored hormone-response after radioligand therapy [65]. PSMA based irradiation of bulky disease may be a promising approach in oligo-recurrent/ progressive disease after ADT. Pre-clinical studies and some clinical data reported enhanced cellular PSMA expression after ADT and a potential association of castration-resistant status and increase of PSMA expression. Additionally, maximal PSMA standardized uptake values (SUVmax) of hormone refractory oligometastatic patients were higher than these of castration sensitive patients [63, 66,67,68]. A recent publication describing 23 patients treated for evidence of oligometastatic prostate cancer on PSMA-PET included 10 castration resistant patients with Median PSA values of Median 5.5 ng/ml [68]. In this poor prognosis group the authors reported a median progression free survival of 7 months. However, it remains unclear how progression was classified. A closer look at the patients revealed that 9 out of 10 patients had lower PSA values during follow-up compared to the value before radiotherapy. Five of them presented PSA decreases > 50% at the last follow up visit. In this small group this rate was quite favorable when compared to PSA decreases in only 8 out of 13 hormone-sensitive patients.

Current practice

We performed a short survey containing twelve short example cases depicting typical clinical scenarios and 6 additional questions (opinion on the value of PSMA-PET, effect of PSMA-PET on treatment) in seven mayor university centers with experience in PSMA-PET imaging. Based on clinical parameters and findings of PSMA-PET we asked for an institutional consensus to suggest treatment recommendations but accepted alternative answers if no consensus was achievable. Twelve questionnaires were included for evaluation. All participants were experienced radiation oncologists with a median time of 10 years in practice and 3 years of experience with PSMA based radiotherapy. Since case reports were relatively short many radiation oncologists demanded additional MRI imaging or pathological information. The detailed information on the patient cases and the respective answers can be found in Additional file 1. When asked for the influence of PSMA-PET on radiotherapeutic management, it was considered to alter treatment in 60% of cases (median). In case of PSA persistence or recurrence without evidence of PSMA-positive lesions, the large majority of radiation oncologists would opt for salvage radiation of the prostate fossa (100% in case of PSA recurrence of 0.26 ng/ml and 92% in case of PSA persistence or PSA recurrence with a PSA value of 2.9 ng/ml). Interestingly, in the latter case 83% would recommend additional androgen deprivation therapy, while only 18% would recommend additional irradiation of the lymphatic drainage.

Remarkably, a very high unanimity existed in case of PSMA evidence of positive pelvic nodes: 92–100% would recommend radiation of prostate fossa, pelvic lymphatic drainage and boost of PSMA positive lesions, with additional androgen deprivation therapy being recommended by most centers irrespective of surgical resection status. In case of two para-aortic lymph node metastases in a R1 resected patient with a Gleason score of 7 an pN+, PSA persistence and a PSA value before radiotherapy of 1.6 ng/ml, most radiation oncologists would recommend ADT (92%) with one limiting the treatment to ADT only. The majority would additional irradiate pelvic lymphatic drainage (75%) and para-aortic nodes (83%), while only 58% would recommend to additionally irradiate the prostate fossa. Only 18% would (alternatively) offer stereotactic ablative radiotherapy of the two lymph nodes. In case of the same para-aortic findings, but in a heavily pre-treated patient (surgery, radiotherapy to the fossa, ADT and hormone-refractory situation with PSA of 0.72 ng/ml) most radiation oncologist would opt for intensification of systemic treatment (18% would only recommend this treatment without any radiotherapy), but still 83% would irradiate PSMA-PET findings either as a boost to para-aortal nodes (67%) or by stereotactic radiotherapy (18%). If the same patient would present without para-aortal but with three lymph nodes restricted to the pelvis 92% would recommend irradiation of pelvic lymphatic drainage with a boost to PSMA positive lesions and 75% (additional) systemic treatment intensification.

In case of a patient with Gleason score of 8 and R0 with pre-radiotherapeutic PSA level of 2.1 ng/ml and a solitary bone metastasis, 91% would irradiate the lesion (stereotactically or fractionated), mostly also recommending systemic treatment/ ADT (64%), only 9% would not irradiate an asymptomatic bone lesion and no one would irradiate prostatic fossa or pelvic nodes. This would however dramatically change if the same patient would present two additional pelvic lymph nodes: 91% would irradiate the lymphatic drainage with a boost to PSMA positive lesions and 75% would also irradiate the prostatic fossa. When the same respondents were asked about their tendency not to irradiate prostate fossa (1 = would definitely not irradiate up to 9 = would definitely irradiate) in a patient with high-risk features who presented postoperative PSA persistence, this was heavily influenced by PSMA-PET findings. In case of lymphatic nodes restricted to the pelvis the majority would irradiate the prostate fossa (Average value: 8.3), however, if only extrapelvic lymph node metastases were evident many radiation oncologists tended not to irradiate (Average 4.1).

In case of the patient described above with castration resistance and two bone lesions detected by PET, 83% would opt for intensification of systemic treatment and 67% would offer additional high-dose irradiation of these lesions.

Most dissent related to omission of radiotherapy of the prostate fossa in case of extrapelvic PSMA positive lesions in a high risk patient with completely resected prostate cancer and persisting postoperative PSA. Figure 2 depicts the willingness to omit radiotherapy to the prostate fossa depending on PSMA-PET findings.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Willingness of twelve radiation oncologists to omit radiotherapy to the prostate fossa (prostate fossa RT). Asked if they would consider omission of prostate fossa RT in a high-risk patient after completely resected (R0) prostate cancer with persisting PSA values (> 0.6 ng/ml). Possible disposition had to be scored and ranged from 1 (definitely yes) to 9 (definitely no). Most radiation oncologists were in favour of prostate fossa RT in case of PSMA positive lesions within the pelvis (left), a high disagreement existed in case of extrapelvic PSMA positive lymph node lesions as only finding in PET (right). Boxplot showing 50% quartiles, whiskers showing whole range of given responses

Full size image

Conclusion

PSMA-PET should be considered the actual gold standard for imaging of biochemical recurrent prostate cancer, outperforming conventional imaging and Choline-PET in regard to sensitivity and specificity for detection of lymph node and distant metastases. PSMA-PET imaging should be recommended for PSA values > 0.5 ng/ml after radical prostatectomy. For biochemical recurrence with PSA values < 0.5 ng/ml or treatment-naïve intermediate or high-risk patients there is no good evidence if and when to use PSMA-PET imaging for staging. Therefore, additional clinical risk factors and potential therapeutic consequences should be carefully considered for each patient. Current clinical guidelines like the German S3 guideline underline the importance of PSMA-PET imaging for recurrent prostate cancer, even as upfront diagnostic approach, while recommending its use in treatment-naïve prostate cancer patient staging within prospective trials only [47]. Initial studies with limited numbers of patients and short follow-up time showed promising biochemical responses in the majority of patients that were treated for PSMA-positive recurrent tumor lesions. However, it is impossible to know yet if this affects overall survival. By our short survey we identified the most critical radiation oncology issues: When to irradiate prostate fossa in case of loco-regional or distant PET findings and how extensive radiation fields should be in case of localized extrapelvic lymph node metastasis? Additionally, there is no published data on potential synergies of ADT and PSMA based external beam radiotherapy as well as PSMA based radioreceptor therapy. This should be further elucidated by pre-clinical models and prospective clinical trials.

Abbreviations

ADT:

Androgen deprivation therapy

CT:

Computed tomography

FDG:

18F-fluorodesoxyglucose

Gy:

Gray

iPSA:

Initial PSA value

ml:

milliliter

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

ng:

Nanogram

PET:

Positron emission tomography

PSA:

Prostate specific antigen

PSMA:

Prostate specific membrane antigen

RT LD:

Radiotherapy to the pelvic lymphatic drainage

RT PA-LD:

Radiotherapy to the para-aortic lymph nodes

RT Prostate Fossa:

Radiotherapy to the prostate fossa

RTOG:

Radiation Therapy Oncology Group

SRT:

Stereotactic radiotherapy

SUVmax :

Maximal standardized uptake value

References

  1. Perera M, Papa N, Christidis D, Wetherell D, Hofman MS, Murphy DG, et al. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictors of positive (68)Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in advanced prostate Cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2016;70:926–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. von Eyben FE, Picchio M, von Eyben R, Rhee H, Bauman G. (68)Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand positron emission tomography/computed tomography for prostate Cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2016.11.002.

  3. Eder M, Schäfer M, Bauder-Wüst U, Hull W-E, Wängler C, Mier W, et al. 68Ga-complex lipophilicity and the targeting property of a urea-based PSMA inhibitor for PET imaging. Bioconjug Chem. 2012;23:688–97. https://doi.org/10.1021/bc200279b.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Afshar-Oromieh A, Haberkorn U, Eder M, Eisenhut M, Zechmann CM. [68Ga]gallium-labelled PSMA ligand as superior PET tracer for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: comparison with 18F-FECH. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1085–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-012-2069-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Afshar-Oromieh A, Malcher A, Eder M, Eisenhut M, Linhart HG, Hadaschik BA, et al. 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. 2013;40:486–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-012-2298-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sterzing F, Kratochwil C, Fiedler H, Katayama S, Habl G, Kopka K, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT: a new technique with high potential for the radiotherapeutic management of prostate cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:34–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3188-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Calais J, Fendler WP, Eiber M, Gartmann J, Chu F-I, Nickols NG, et al. Impact of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT on the Management of Prostate Cancer Patients with biochemical recurrence. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:434–41. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.202945.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Calais J, Czernin J, Cao M, Kishan AU, Hegde JV, Shaverdian N, et al. 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT mapping of prostate Cancer biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in 270 patients with a PSA level of less than 1.0 ng/mL: impact on salvage radiotherapy planning. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:230–7. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.201749.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sheikhbahaei S, Afshar-Oromieh A, Eiber M, Solnes LB, Javadi MS, Ross AE, et al. Pearls and pitfalls in clinical interpretation of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted PET imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3780-7.

  10. Dietlein F, Kobe C, Neubauer S, Schmidt M, Stockter S, Fischer T, et al. PSA-stratified performance of (18)F- and (68)Ga-PSMA PET in patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate Cancer. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:947–52. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.185538.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Domachevsky L, Bernstine H, Goldberg N, Nidam M, Stern D, Sosna J, et al. Early (68)GA-PSMA PET/MRI acquisition: assessment of lesion detectability and PET metrics in patients with prostate cancer undergoing same-day late PET/CT. Clin Radiol. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2017.06.116.

  12. Uprimny C, Kroiss AS, Fritz J, Decristoforo C, Kendler D, von Guggenberg E, et al. Early PET imaging with [68]Ga-PSMA-11 increases the detection rate of local recurrence in prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:1647–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3743-z.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Roach PJ, Francis R, Emmett L, Hsiao E, Kneebone A, Hruby G, et al. The impact of (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT on management intent in prostate cancer: results of an Australian prospective multicenter study. J Nucl Med. 2017; https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.197160.

  14. Dewes S, Schiller K, Sauter K, Eiber M, Maurer T, Schwaiger M, et al. Integration of (68)Ga-PSMA-PET imaging in planning of primary definitive radiotherapy in prostate cancer: a retrospective study. Radiat Oncol. 2016;11:73. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-016-0646-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Budäus L, Leyh-Bannurah S-R, Salomon G, Michl U, Heinzer H, Huland H, et al. Initial experience of (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT imaging in high-risk prostate Cancer patients prior to radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2016;69:393–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Herlemann A, Wenter V, Kretschmer A, Thierfelder KM, Bartenstein P, Faber C, et al. 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. 2016;70:553–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.12.051.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. van Leeuwen PJ, Emmett L, Ho B, Delprado W, Ting F, Nguyen Q, et al. Prospective evaluation of 68Gallium-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography for preoperative lymph node staging in prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2017;119:209–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13540.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fendler WP, Schmidt DF, Wenter V, Thierfelder KM, Zach C, Stief C, et al. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT detects the location and extent of primary prostate Cancer. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:1720–5. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.172627.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Maurer T, Gschwend JE, Rauscher I, Souvatzoglou M, Haller B, Weirich G, et al. Diagnostic efficacy of (68)gallium-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. 2016;195:1436–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rhee H, Thomas P, Shepherd B, Gustafson S, Vela I, Russell PJ, et al. Prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography may improve the diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in localized prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2016;196:1261–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.3000.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zamboglou C, Wieser G, Hennies S, Rempel I, Kirste S, Soschynski M, et al. MRI versus 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT for gross tumour volume delineation in radiation treatment planning of primary prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:889–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3257-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Eiber M, Weirich G, Holzapfel K, Souvatzoglou M, Haller B, Rauscher I, et al. Simultaneous (68)Ga-PSMA HBED-CC PET/MRI improves the localization of primary prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2016;70:829–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.12.053.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Zamboglou C, Schiller F, Fechter T, Wieser G, Jilg CA, Chirindel A, et al. (68)Ga-HBED-CC-PSMA PET/CT versus histopathology in primary localized prostate Cancer: a voxel-wise comparison. Theranostics. 2016;6:1619–28. https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.15344.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Koukourakis MI, Giatromanolaki A, Panteliadou M, Pouliliou SE, Chondrou PS, Mavropoulou S, et al. Lactate dehydrogenase 5 isoenzyme overexpression defines resistance of prostate cancer to radiotherapy. Br J Cancer. 2014;110:2217–23. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2014.158.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Chang L, Graham PH, Hao J, Bucci J, Cozzi PJ, Kearsley JH, et al. Emerging roles of radioresistance in prostate cancer metastasis and radiation therapy. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2014;33:469–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10555-014-9493-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rao BR, Slotman BJ, Geldof AA, Perez CA. Radiation sensitivity of Copenhagen rat prostatic carcinoma (R3327-AT and R3327-MATLyLu). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991;20:981–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. De-Colle C, Yaromina A, Hennenlotter J, Thames H, Mueller A-C, Neumann T, et al. Ex vivo γH2AX radiation sensitivity assay in prostate cancer: inter-patient and intra-patient heterogeneity. Radiother Oncol. 2017;124:386–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2017.08.020.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bentzen SM. Theragnostic imaging for radiation oncology: dose-painting by numbers. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6:112–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(05)01737-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Zamboglou C, Drendel V, Jilg CA, Rischke HC, Beck TI, Schultze-Seemann W, et al. Comparison of (68)Ga-HBED-CC PSMA-PET/CT and multiparametric MRI for gross tumour volume detection in patients with primary prostate cancer based on slice by slice comparison with histopathology. Theranostics. 2017;7:228–37. https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.16638.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Peeters STH, Heemsbergen WD, Koper PCM, van Putten WLJ, Slot A, Dielwart MFH, et al. Dose-response in radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: results of the Dutch multicenter randomized phase III trial comparing 68 Gy of radiotherapy with 78 Gy. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:1990–6. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.05.2530.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Dearnaley DP, Sydes MR, Graham JD, Aird EG, Bottomley D, Cowan RA, et al. Escalated-dose versus standard-dose conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer: first results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8:475–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(07)70143-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Zamboglou C, Sachpazidis I, Koubar K, Drendel V, Wiehle R, Kirste S, et al. Evaluation of intensity modulated radiation therapy dose painting for localized prostate cancer using (68)Ga-HBED-CC PSMA-PET/CT: a planning study based on histopathology reference. Radiother Oncol. 2017;123:472–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2017.04.021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Koerber SA, Utzinger MT, Kratochwil C, Kesch C, Haefner M, Katayama S, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA11-PET/CT in newly diagnosed carcinoma of the prostate: correlation of intraprostatic PSMA uptake with several clinical parameters. J Nucl Med. 2017; https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.190314.

  34. Ristau BT, O’Keefe DS, Bacich DJ. The prostate-specific membrane antigen: lessons and current clinical implications from 20 years of research. Urol Oncol. 2014;32:272–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2013.09.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Thorwarth D, Notohamiprodjo M, Zips D, Müller A-C. Personalized precision radiotherapy by integration of multi-parametric functional and biological imaging in prostate cancer: a feasibility study. Z Med Phys. 2017;27:21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zemedi.2016.02.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Giesel FL, Sterzing F, Schlemmer HP, Holland-Letz T, Mier W, Rius M, et al. Intra-individual comparison of (68)Ga-PSMA-11-PET/CT and multi-parametric MR for imaging of primary prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:1400–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3346-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Gupta M, Choudhury PS, Hazarika D, Rawal S. A comparative study of (68)gallium-prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography-computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for lymph node staging in high risk prostate Cancer patients: an initial experience. World J Nucl Med. 2017;16:186–91. https://doi.org/10.4103/1450-1147.207272.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Vinsensia M, Choyke PL, Hadaschik B, Holland-Letz T, Moltz J, Kopka K, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT and volumetric morphology of PET-positive lymph nodes stratified by tumor differentiation of prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2017; https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.185033.

  39. Öbek C, Doğanca T, Demirci E, Ocak M, Kural AR, Yıldırım A, et al. The accuracy of (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT in primary lymph node staging in high-risk prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3752-y.

  40. Schwenck J, Rempp H, Reischl G, Kruck S, Stenzl A, Nikolaou K, et al. Comparison of (68)Ga-labelled PSMA-11 and (11)C-choline in the detection of prostate cancer metastases by PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:92–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3490-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Bluemel C, Krebs M, Polat B, Linke F, Eiber M, Samnick S, et al. 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT in patients with biochemical prostate Cancer recurrence and negative 18F-choline-PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med. 2016;41:515–21. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0000000000001197.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Jilg CA, Drendel V, Rischke HC, Beck T, Vach W, Schaal K, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of Ga-68-HBED-CC-PSMA-ligand-PET/CT before salvage lymph node dissection for recurrent prostate Cancer. Theranostics. 2017;7:1770–80. https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.18421.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Pyka T, Okamoto S, Dahlbender M, Tauber R, Retz M, Heck M, et al. Comparison of bone scintigraphy and (68)Ga-PSMA PET for skeletal staging in prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:2114–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3435-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Thomas L, Balmus C, Ahmadzadehfar H, Essler M, Strunk H, Bundschuh RA. Assessment of bone metastases in patients with prostate Cancer-a comparison between (99m)Tc-bone-scintigraphy and [(68)Ga]Ga-PSMA PET/CT. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2017;10 https://doi.org/10.3390/ph10030068.

  45. Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Kattan MW, Pisansky TM, Slawin KM, Klein EA, et al. Predicting the outcome of salvage radiation therapy for recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:2035–41. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.08.9607.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Tendulkar RD, Agrawal S, Gao T, Efstathiou JA, Pisansky TM, Michalski JM, et al. Contemporary update of a multi-institutional predictive nomogram for salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.67.9647.

  47. Interdisziplinäre Leitlinie der Qualität S3 zur Früherkennung, Diagnose und Therapie der verschiedenen Stadien des Prostatakarzinoms [Internet]. Available: https://www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/leitlinien/prostatakarzinom/. Accessed 9 May 2018.

  48. Afshar-Oromieh A, Holland-Letz T, Giesel FL, Kratochwil C, Mier W, Haufe S, et al. Diagnostic performance of (68)Ga-PSMA-11 (HBED-CC) PET/CT in patients with recurrent prostate cancer: evaluation in 1007 patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:1258–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3711-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Eiber M, Maurer T, Souvatzoglou M, Beer AJ, Ruffani A, Haller B, et al. Evaluation of hybrid 68Ga-PSMA ligand PET/CT in 248 patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:668–74. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.154153.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Rauscher I, Düwel C, Haller B, Rischpler C, Heck MM, Gschwend JE, et al. 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. 2018;73:656–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.01.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Verburg FA, Pfister D, Heidenreich A, Vogg A, Drude NI, Vöö S, et al. Extent of disease in recurrent prostate cancer determined by [(68)Ga]PSMA-HBED-CC PET/CT in relation to PSA levels, PSA doubling time and Gleason score. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:397–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3240-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Ceci F, Uprimny C, Nilica B, Geraldo L, Kendler D, Kroiss A, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT for restaging recurrent prostate cancer: which factors are associated with PET/CT detection rate? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:1284–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3078-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. van Leeuwen PJ, Stricker P, Hruby G, Kneebone A, Ting F, Thompson B, et al. (68) Ga-PSMA has a high detection rate of prostate cancer recurrence outside the prostatic fossa in patients being considered for salvage radiation treatment. BJU Int. 2016;117:732–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13397.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Habl G, Sauter K, Schiller K, Dewes S, Maurer T, Eiber M, et al. (68) Ga-PSMA-PET for radiation treatment planning in prostate cancer recurrences after surgery: individualized medicine or new standard in salvage treatment. Prostate. 2017;77:920–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.23347.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Shakespeare TP. Effect of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography on the decision-making of radiation oncologists. Radiat Oncol. 2015;10:233. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-015-0548-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Schiller K, Sauter K, Dewes S, Eiber M, Maurer T, Gschwend J, et al. Patterns of failure after radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer - implications for radiation therapy planning after (68)Ga-PSMA-PET imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:1656–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3746-9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Lawton CAF, Michalski J, El-Naqa I, Buyyounouski MK, Lee WR, Menard C, et al. RTOG GU radiation oncology specialists reach consensus on pelvic lymph node volumes for high-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;74:383–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.08.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Emmett L, Van Leeuwen P, Nandurkar R, Scheltema MJ, Cusick T, Hruby G, et al. Treatment outcomes from (68)GaPSMA PET CT informed salvage radiation treatment in men with rising PSA following radical prostatectomy: prognostic value of a negative PSMA PET. J Nucl Med. 2017; https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.196683.

  59. Zschaeck S, Wust P, Beck M, Wlodarczyk W, Kaul D, Rogasch J, et al. Intermediate-term outcome after PSMA-PET guided high-dose radiotherapy of recurrent high-risk prostate cancer patients. Radiat Oncol. 2017;12:140. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-017-0877-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Hellman S, Weichselbaum RR. Oligometastases. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13:8–10. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1995.13.1.8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Habl G, Straube C, Schiller K, Duma MN, Oechsner M, Kessel KA, et al. Oligometastases from prostate cancer: local treatment with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). BMC Cancer. 2017;17:361. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3341-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Percutaneous High-dose Radiotherapy in Patients With Oligometastases of Prostate Carcinoma (Oli-P) [Internet]. Available: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02264379. Accessed 9 May 2018.

  63. Wright GL, Mayer Grob B, Haley C, Grossman K, Newhall K, Petrylak D, et al. Upregulation of prostate-specific membrane antigen after androgen-deprivation therapy. Urology. 1996;48:326–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(96)00184-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Craft N, Chhor C, Tran C, Belldegrun A, DeKernion J, Witte ON, et al. Evidence for clonal outgrowth of androgen-independent prostate cancer cells from androgen-dependent tumors through a two-step process. Cancer Res. 1999;59:5030–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Schlenkhoff CD, Knüpfer E, Essler M, Ahmadzadehfar H. Metastatic prostate Cancer with restored hormone-response after Radioligand therapy with 177Lu-PSMA-617. Clin Nucl Med. 2016;41:572–3. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0000000000001200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Hope TA, Truillet C, Ehman EC, Afshar-Oromieh A, Aggarwal R, Ryan CJ, et al. 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET imaging of response to androgen receptor inhibition: first human experience. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:81–4. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.181800.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Meller B, Bremmer F, Sahlmann CO, Hijazi S, Bouter C, Trojan L, et al. Alterations in androgen deprivation enhanced prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) expression in prostate cancer cells as a target for diagnostics and therapy. EJNMMI Res. 2015;5:66. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-015-0145-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Guler OC, Engels B, Onal C, Everaert H, Van den Begin R, Gevaert T, et al. The feasibility of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography(PSMA PET/CT)-guided radiotherapy in oligometastatic prostate cancer patients. Clin Transl Oncol. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-017-1736-9.

  69. Henkenberens C, VON Klot CA, Ross TL, Bengel FM, Wester H-J, Katja H, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA ligand PET/CT-based radiotherapy for lymph node relapse of prostate Cancer after primary therapy delays initiation of systemic therapy. Anticancer Res. 2017;37:1273–9. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.11444.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Bluemel C, Linke F, Herrmann K, Simunovic I, Eiber M, Kestler C, et al. Impact of (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT on salvage radiotherapy planning in patients with prostate cancer and persisting PSA values or biochemical relapse after prostatectomy. EJNMMI Res. 2016;6:78. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-016-0233-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Henkenberens C, von Klot CA, Ross TL, Bengel FM, Wester H-J, Merseburger AS, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA ligand PET/CT-based radiotherapy in locally recurrent and recurrent oligometastatic prostate cancer : early efficacy after primary therapy. Strahlenther Onkol. 2016;192:431–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-016-0982-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Availability of data and materials

The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article is included within the article and is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Sebastian Zschaeck, Marcus Beck, Peter Wust & Pirus Ghadjar

  2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany

    Fabian Lohaus & Tobias Hölscher

  3. German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Dresden, Germany

    Fabian Lohaus & Tobias Hölscher

  4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Munich, Germany

    Gregor Habl & Stephanie E. Combs

  5. Institute of Innovative Radiotherapy (iRT), Department of Radiation Sciences (DRS), Helmholtz Zentrum München (HMGU), München, Germany

    Gregor Habl & Stephanie E. Combs

  6. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Stephanie Kroeze & Matthias Guckenberger

  7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Dresden, Germany

    Constantinos Zamboglou & Anca Ligia Grosu

  8. German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Dresden, Germany

    Constantinos Zamboglou & Anca Ligia Grosu

  9. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Stefan Alexander Koerber & Jürgen Debus

  10. German cancer research center (DKFZ) and german consortium for translational cancer research (DKTK), Heidelberg, Germany

    Stefan Alexander Koerber & Jürgen Debus

  11. Department of Radiation Oncology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany

    Claus Belka

  12. German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) partner site Munich, Munich, Germany

    Stephanie E. Combs & Claus Belka

  13. Department of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, Innsbruck Medical University, Innsbruck, Austria

    Ute Ganswindt

  14. Department of of Radiology, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Alexander D. J. Baur

  15. Nuclear Medicine Department, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany

    Klaus Zöphel

  16. Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, München, Switzerland

    Nikola Cihoric

  17. Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Klinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany

    Sebastian Zschaeck

Authors
  1. Sebastian Zschaeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fabian Lohaus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marcus Beck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gregor Habl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stephanie Kroeze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Constantinos Zamboglou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Stefan Alexander Koerber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jürgen Debus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Tobias Hölscher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Peter Wust
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Ute Ganswindt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Alexander D. J. Baur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Klaus Zöphel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Nikola Cihoric
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Matthias Guckenberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Stephanie E. Combs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Anca Ligia Grosu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Pirus Ghadjar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Claus Belka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SZ drafted the manuscript, designed the figures and performed the analysis of the survey. PW and PG provided ideas and help with the manuscript. PW and PG provided ideas for the analysis. All authors contributed to the survey, read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastian Zschaeck.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This review does not involve human participants.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Additional file

Additional file 1:

Detailed information on individual cases and the respective answers of all participating radiation oncologists. (DOCX 93 kb)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zschaeck, S., Lohaus, F., Beck, M. et al. PSMA-PET based radiotherapy: a review of initial experiences, survey on current practice and future perspectives. Radiat Oncol 13, 90 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-018-1047-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-018-1047-5

Keywords

Radiation Oncology

ISSN: 1748-717X

Contact us