Correlation between Prostate Cancer Positive Cores and 68Ga-PSMA Distribution in Prostate Gland.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of our study was to evaluate reliability of 68Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (68Ga-PSMA PET/CT) and identify appropriate SUVmax cutoff values in order to use for diagnosis, especially in patients remained clinically suspicious for prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: Eighty-four patients applied 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT subsequent to transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-bx) involved in this study retrospectively. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT imagings were analyzed by a nuclear medicine physician, and region of interests were drawn manually in prostate diagrams including 6 segments for each patient. These marked diagrams were analyzed with histopathology reports TRUS-bx. 504 segments were grouped with Gleason scoring system, and all groups were compared with mean SUVmax values. RESULTS: Mean SUVmax value of Gleason grade group 1 (GG1, n: 352 segments) was 6.6 (±4.6) and significantly lower than the other groups (p < 0.001). No significant difference was detected within GG2-5 groups (p > 0.05). According to receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, SUVmax cutoff values were 1.0 (AUC: 0.961) for tumor detection, yielding a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value of 99.4%, 92.1%, 96.5%, 98%, respectively, and 4.2 (AUC: 0.853) for detection of clinically significant PCa with 88.8%, 62.4%, 84.5%, and 71%, respectively. Although tumor percentage of biopsy core and Gleason group were correlated with SUVmax uptake, but patient age was not. CONCLUSION: 68Ga-PSMA PET appears to be a reliable option for diagnosis and disease management in PCa and can be considered especially in discrimination of csPCa, and patients remained suspicious for disease.

Does STING failure affect short-term graft functions in renal transplant patients: a single-center study.

PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate outcomes of symptomatic VUR treatment in transplant patients, compare open and endoscopic approaches in terms of graft functions, success rates, complications and recurrent UTIs. METHODS: 67 patients who undergone only STING and STING followed redo UNC due to symptomatic VUR after kidney transplantation were included into the investigation. Patients who had lower urinary tract dysfunctions were excluded from the trial. For 67 patients, baseline and before final surgery and 3rd month creatinine and GFR levels were recorded. Twenty-six of those 67 patients had redo UNC due to failed STING. The data of those patients were compared with the remaining 41 patients who had only STING. RESULTS: In both groups no statistically significant variations in serum creatinine and GFR levels were detected during follow-up (p > 0.05). Serum levels after STING and in the 3rd month of redo UNC were compared. Although variation was observed in serum creatinine levels and in GFR levels, was not statistically significant (p: 0.59 and p: 0.23). The success rate of STING was %61.1 in 67 patients, and was not significantly different when three VUR grade groups (Grade 3 n:17, Grade 4 n:24, Grade 5 n:36) were compared (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The present study revealed that subureteral endoscopic injection is cost effective and safe for the first-line treatment due to its minimally invasive nature, does not cause delay which leads to deterioration of graft functions. Redo-UNC has acceptable morbidity and complication rates, should be considered when STING is failed.