Similarities and Differences Among PSMA-PET Tracers

EP: 1.Overview of Advances in Imaging in Prostate Cancer

EP: 2.The Impact of PSMA-PET Imaging in Prostate Cancer

EP: 3.Identifying the Right Patient Population for PSMA-PET Imaging

EP: 4.PSMA-PET Imaging in the Biochemical Recurrence Setting

EP: 5.The Impact of PSMA-PET Imaging on Treatment Decisions

EP: 6.The Role for PSMA-PET Imaging in Active Surveillance

EP: 7.When and How Often PSMA-PET Imaging Should be Used

EP: 8.Monitoring Treatment Response

EP: 9.Unmet Needs and Challenges in Imaging of Prostate Cancer

EP: 10.The Value of Multidisciplinary Care in PSMA-PET Imaging

EP: 11.Future Directions in PSMA-PET Imaging

EP: 12.PSMA-PET Imaging for Prostate Cancer: Perspectives From a Nuclear Radiologist

Now Viewing

EP: 13.Similarities and Differences Among PSMA-PET Tracers

EP: 14.Tips for Improving the Interpretation and Reporting of PSMA-PET Imaging Results

Video content above is prompted by the following questions:

• There are currently gallium- and fluorine-based PSMA-PET tracer options that are FDA approved. Can you review some of similarities and differences between the gallium and fluorine imaging tracer options identified above in terms of image quality and resolution? And accuracy and false positives?
• Gallium and fluorine tracers also have different half-lives. What does this mean in real-world practice in terms of patient scheduling and preparing for imaging? Can you provide any real-world examples of when one tracer may be preferential over another?
• There are two available F18 tracers available: 18F-Piflufolastat and 18F-Flotufolastat. What are some of the key differences between these? Can you share any examples of differences you’ve seen between these two tracers when used in real-world practice?