Skip to main content
Download PDF

Diagnostic efficacy of [99mTc]Tc-PSMA SPECT/CT for prostate cancer: a meta-analysis

BMC Cancer volume 24, Article number: 982 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Prompt and accurate diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) is of paramount importance for effective treatment planning. While Gallium-68 labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) has proven efficacy in detecting PCa, limited availability poses challenges. As a potential alternative, [99mTc]Tc-PSMA single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/computed tomography (CT) holds promise. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of [99mTc]Tc-PSMA SPECT/CT for prostate cancer.

Methods

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, Scopus, Ovid, and Web of Science databases was conducted until July 2024. Sensitivity and specificity data were extracted to assess the diagnostic accuracy of [99mTc]Tc-PSMA SPECT/CT, while the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was used to evaluate study quality. Statistical analyses were performed using STATA 18, with MetaDisc 1.4 employed to detect threshold effects. Diagnostic accuracy indicators, including sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), negative likelihood ratio (LR-), and positive likelihood ratio (LR+), were pooled. The area under the curve (AUC) of the combined model was calculated using summary receiver-operating characteristic (SROC) curves.

Results

Seven studies meeting the inclusion criteria were identified from an initial pool of 1467 articles, with no publication bias observed. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of [99mTc]Tc-PSMA SPECT/CT were found to be 0.89 (95% CI, 0.84–0.93), 0.92 (95% CI, 0.67–0.99), and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90–0.95), respectively. Additionally, the comprehensive diagnostic odds ratio, diagnostic score, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio were calculated as 95.24 (95% CI, 17.30-524.41), 4.56 (95% CI, 2.85–6.26), 11.35 (95% CI, 2.31–55.71), and 0.12 (95% CI, 0.08–0.18), respectively.

Conclusions

In conclusion, our findings demonstrate that [99mTc]Tc-PSMA SPECT/CT exhibits favorable diagnostic performance for prostate cancer and can provide valuable supplementary information, particularly in regions and settings where [68Ga]Ga-PSMA PET/CT availability is limited, such as remote areas. These results highlight the potential of [99mTc]Tc-PSMA SPECT/CT as a valuable tool in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer, warranting further investigation and validation in larger patient cohorts.

Peer Review reports

Background

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common malignancy and the fifth most common cause of cancer-related deaths in men worldwide, accounting for over 29% of all cancers diagnosed in 2023 and causing approximately 350,000 deaths [1,2,3,4]. Early detection, improved cancer screening, and ensuring access to cancer treatment are important factors to improve prostate cancer prevention. According to a recent report from the US National Cancer Statistics, early detection and treatment of prostate cancer reduced prostate cancer mortality, with age-adjusted prostate cancer mortality rates declining each year [4, 5].

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is a type II transmembrane glycoprotein, whose structure consists of a large extracellular structural domain, a trans-membrane protein, and an intracellular structural domain, and whose extracellular portion accounts for 95% of the protein, making it an ideal target for small molecule and antibody drugs used in imaging and therapeutics [6, 7]. PSMA is overexpressed in prostate tumor cells, and the presence of PSMA is 100- to 1000-fold higher in prostate cancer than in benign prostate tissue or normal tissue of most other organs. PSMA expression increases with cancer stage and grade [8,9,10], especially in metastatic prostate cancer, making PSMA the most important biomarker for diagnosis and targeted therapy [10, 11].

With the development of molecular imaging, positron emission tomography (PET) has achieved great success in the development of tracers and biomarkers for a wide range of biological targets and has an undisputed superiority in molecular imaging. [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC (called PSMA-11) is the most widely used and prominent 68Ga-labelled PSMA radioligand in clinical practice worldwide and has a high diagnostic accuracy [12]. Although the higher sensitivity and spatial resolution of PET technology compared to single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) technology has made PET more popular than SPECT, the higher cost of PET equipment makes it sometimes difficult to use it in routine clinical practice, especially in remote areas [13]. Gallium-68 can be obtained by elution of a Germanium-68/Gallium-68 (68Ge/68Ga) generator. These generators can be locally eluted, facilitating the production of radiolabeled PSMA; however, the high cost of 68Ge/68Ga generators and the fact that the amount of radionuclide obtained per elution is only sufficient for a relatively small number of patients. The short half-life of 68Ga may impact on the large-scale introduction of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA PET/CT into clinical practice [14]. With significant progress in SPECT hardware and software, SPECT is gradually closing the gap with PET technology. Meanwhile, compared to 68Ga production, 99Mo/99mTc generators are not only capable of producing enough 99mTc to support large-scale clinical use, but are also relatively inexpensive, making 99mTc an ideal choice for radiopharmaceutical applications [15]. At the same time, 99mTc has optimal emission characteristics for single photon emission computed tomography imaging [16]. The simplicity and low cost of SPECT using 99mTc radiopharmaceuticals with a long half-life has led to the worldwide adoption of this technique as part of routine diagnostic procedures in nuclear medicine [17]. Therefore, [99mTc]Tc-PSMA SPECT/CT may have broader clinical applicability than [68Ga]Ga-PSMA PET/CT, which may provide uro-oncologists and nuclear medicine physicians with more options in the diagnosis of prostate cancer, especially when [68Ga]Ga-PSMA PET/CT is not yet widely available.

Previous studies have reported the diagnostic efficacy of [99mTc]Tc-PSMA SPECT/CT for prostate cancer. [18,19,20] The systematic combination of diagnostic accuracy indicators of the included studies in a meta-analysis leads to a more reliable conclusion. Thus, the purpose of this study is to assess the clinical value of [99mTc]Tc-PSMA SPECT/CT for the diagnosis of prostate cancer by systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies. The project was registered at INPLASY (https://inplasy.com) (registration number INPLAS 202420065).

Methods

Literature search strategy

Bibliographic databases PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, Scopus, Ovid, and Web of Science were searched until July 2024. The search included combinations of the following terms: (1) Prostate Neoplasms; (2) Technetium; (3) Tomography, Emission-computerized, Single-photon; (4) Sensitivity or Specificity or Diagnosis or Staging. The search keywords were as follows: (1) “Prostatic Neoplasms” OR “Prostate Cancer” OR “Prostate Carcinoma”; (2) “Tomography, Emission-computed, Single-photon”; (3) “Technetium” OR “Technetium-99m” OR “Tc-99m”; (4) “Sensitivity” OR “Specificity” OR “Diagnosis” OR “Neoplasm Staging”.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Retrieved publications were subject to the inclusion and exclusion criteria established below.

Inclusion criteria: (1) [99mTc]Tc-PSMA SPECT/CT was used to diagnose prostate cancer patients; (2) Studies assessed the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity can use histopathology or/and imaging or clinical follow-up as a reference standard; (3) Patient-based research; (4) Sufficient data were presented to calculate the true-positive (TP), false-positive (FP), false-negative (FN), and true-negative (TN) values for the imaging techniques.

Exclusion criteria: (1) Review or meta-analysis, case report; (2) The data provided by the article was not enough to calculate the diagnostic accuracy; (3) The research content was irrelevant to this study; (4) Publications with study population overlap; (5) Patients with a secondary malignant neoplasm were excluded from the study.

Documentation and evaluation

The following data were extracted from the included studies by two independent researchers: author, publication time (year), country, study design (prospective or retrospective), sample size, TP, FP, FN, TN, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, tracer type, and the diagnostic gold standard, prostate cancer stage at the time of patients’ enrollment. Disagreements between the two reviewers were resolved by discussion or consultation with a third reviewer. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) scale [21] including four areas: case selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing has been used to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias of the selected studies. The low, high, or unclear risk was assessed for each domain.

Statistical methods

STATA 18 was used for statistical calculations in this study. Meta Disc 1.4 was used to detect threshold effects. Diagnostic accuracy indicators, including sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), negative likelihood ratio (LR-), and positive likelihood ratio (LP+), were pooled. The area under the curve (AUC) of the combined model was calculated using summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves. The heterogeneity among the included studies was quantified using Galbraith radial plot. We assessed the publication bias of the included studies using Deek’s funnel plot. All hypothesis tests were statistically significant with a two-sided P-value of less than 0.05.

Results

Study characteristics

A total of 1467 relevant publications were generated through the systematic search. Following screening based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria, this meta-analysis included a total of 7 publications comprising 4 conference abstracts [22,23,24,25] and 3 full texts [26,27,28]. Figure 1 displays the PRISMA flowchart about the inclusion of studies. The sample size ranged from 30 cases to 152 cases. Two studies were conducted in China, one in India, one in Bulgaria, two in Hungary, and one in the US and Europe. A total of six radiotracers were included in the seven studies; these were [99mTc]Tc-MIP-1404, [99mTc]Tc-PSMA-I&S, [99mTc]Tc-PSMA-T4, [99mTc]Tc-PSMA-11, [99mTc]Tc-mas3-ynal-k(Sub-KuE), and [99mTc]Tc-HYNIC-PSMA. Two studies had a retrospective study design, four had a prospective study design, and one did not state the study design. Five studies used histopathology as the final diagnostic criterion, one study used histopathology or follow-up as the final diagnostic criteria, and one study did not state the reference standard. Six articles had patients in the primary stage and one article had patients in the recurrent stage. The characteristics of the included studies are shown in Table 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow chart of the study selection process

Full size image
Table 1 Characteristics of the 7 included studies
Full size table

The RevMan 5.4 was used to plot a segmented bar chart containing the scoring criteria for each QUADAS-2. Figure 2 shows that the quality of the included literature was high. The majority of the literature included a description of the gold standard used and a description of the diagnostic criteria for prostate cancer.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Sectional bar chart summarizing the quality assessment of the literature using a diagnostic tool for assessing the qualities of experimental research: (A) Methodological quality of the included studies (individual assessment); (B) Summary of the methodological quality of the included studies

Full size image

Meta-analysis

Heterogeneity analysis

There was no no threshold effect (Spearman correlation coefficient was 0.505, p = 0.248). The Galbraith radial plot showed the data could be merged (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Galbraith radial plot: all studies fell within the confidence interval regression line, proving that the data could be merged

Full size image

Combined effect analysis

The pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC were 0.89 (95% CI, 0.84–0.93), 0.92 (95% CI, 0.67–0.99), and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90–0.95), respectively. The comprehensive diagnostic odds ratio, diagnostic score, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio were 95.24 (95% CI, 17.30-524.41), 4.56 (95% CI, 2.85–6.26), 11.35 (95% CI, 2.31–55.71), and 0.12 (95% CI, 0.08–0.18) respectively. (Fig. 4– 7). The scatter plot of the likelihood ratios indicated that the combined accuracy of [99mTc]Tc-PSMA SPECT/CT for the diagnosis of prostate cancer was good, with pooled estimates with 95% confidence intervals in the top right quadrant (Fig. 8).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Combined sensitivity and specificity forest plot. There is no obvious heterogeneity in either of them, for sensitivity: I2 = 31.81, p = 0.19, for specificity: I2 = 55.67, p = 0.04

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) and area under the curve (AUC) after combining

Full size image

Fagan nomogram analysis

A predicted probability of 50% was used to simulate a clinical situation. This resulted the positive likelihood ratio was 11 and the positive post-test probability was 92%, while the negative likelihood ratio was 0.12 and the negative post-test probability was 11% (Fig. 9).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Forest plot for diagnostic odds ratio and score after combination

Full size image

Publication bias analysis

The Deeks’ funnel plot showed a slope coefficient of 0.22, indicating that there was no relevant publication bias in the included studies (Fig. 10).

Fig. 7
figure 7

Forest plot of likelihood ratio by combination (LR+, LR-)

Full size image

Discussion

Although it has its limitations, SPECT remains the most widely used imaging modality in the world. This is due to the fact that SPECT/CT imaging equipment requires less investment and can be easily extended to remote areas [29, 30]. As radiopharmaceuticals relevant to diagnostic and therapeutic targets are developed in conjunction with acquisition systems, SPECT will continue to play an important role in nuclear medicine imaging [31].

As far as we are aware, no meta-analysis has been published on the diagnostic effectiveness of [99mTc]Tc-PSMA-SPECT/CT for prostate cancer. In our research, six tracers were included in the seven studies, one each of which used [99mTc]Tc-MIP-1404, [99mTc]Tc-PSMA-T4, and [99mTc]Tc-PSMA-11, [99mTc]Tc-PSMA-I&S, and [99mTc]Tc-mas3-ynal-k(Sub-KuE), respectively, as tracers, and two of which used [99mTc]Tc-HYNIC-PSMA, as tracers. All studies showed excellent sensitivity and specificity, and [99mTc]Tc-MIP-1404 showed the best accuracy among all radiotracers (Table 1). [99mTc]Tc-PSMA SPECT/CT showed high sensitivity, specificity, and AUC in the diagnosis of prostate cancer (Figs. 4 and 5). It also performed well in terms of positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic score (Figs. 6and 7). Based on these results, we believe that [99mTc]Tc-PSMA SPECT/CT could be considered one of the primary imaging modalities for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Fig. 8
figure 8

Distribution scatter diagram of the likelihood ratio (LR+/LR-) of each study and combined estimated value. (Top-Right Quadrant: Indicates studies with both high LR + and high LR-, suggesting good diagnostic accuracy)

Full size image
Fig. 9
figure 9

Fagan nomogram of the accuracy of [99mTc]Tc-PSMA SPECT/CT in the diagnosis of prostate cancer

Full size image
Fig. 10
figure 10

Deeks’ funnel plot of included studies

Full size image

For the diagnostic work-up of PCa, the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines recommend the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) as standard imaging for biopsy-naïve patients [32]. Performing mpMRI before the initial prostate biopsy may triage patients and reduce unnecessary interventions. MP-MRI can also aid in reducing the overdiagnosis of prostate cancer in patients with subtle clinical symptoms and in increasing the detection rate of prostate cancer in patients with obvious clinical symptoms [33]. However, mpMRI has certain limitations, mpMRI may miss clinically significant intraprostatic tumor lesions, and the occurrence of these limitations include the possibility of false positives or false negatives, as well as the possibility of underestimating tumor volume, which may affect treatment decisions. [34, 35] Relative contraindications to mpMRI such as incompatible implants, which may lead to certain derived limitations in its application compared to CT. [36] Berger et al. [37] compared [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT with mpMRI in localized regional PCa staging, PSMA PET/CT had a higher rate of lesion detection, as well as a higher sensitivity for index lesion localization. A systematic review and meta-analysis conducted by Zhen L. [38] et al. included 29 studies and 8503 patients to assess the accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing prostate cancer. The results showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.87 [95% CI, 0.81–0.91] and a pooled specificity of 0.68 [95% CI, 0.56–0.79]. The positive likelihood ratios and negative likelihood ratios were 2.73 [95%CI, 1.90–3.90] and 0.19 [95%CI, 0.14–0.27], respectively. Although direct comparisons with previous meta-analyses are less rigorous, our current meta-analysis suggests that [99mTc]Tc-PSMA SPECT/CT has better diagnostic performance than mpMRI, with better sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratios, and negative likelihood ratios.

PET and SPECT imaging are widely used in clinical diagnostics and therapy [39, 40]. PET is a quantitative imaging tool that appears to surpass SPECT technology, but we cannot simply think which is the better one. PET has the advantage of higher image resolution, fewer attenuation and scattering artifacts, higher sensitivity, and more robust and flexible tracers. SPECT has the advantage of the longer half-life of single photon emitters and their greater ability to target biologically active molecules under certain conditions. However, the high-cost burden limits the availability of PET imaging. In contrast, SPECT imaging is less costly and more readily available in the clinic [31, 41]. A meta-analysis of [18F]F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT, [18F]F-FDG PET/CT, and [68Ga]Ga-PSMA PET/CT for the diagnostic efficacy of prostate cancer by Yu W. et al. [42] showed that the sensitivity and specificity of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA PET/CT for the diagnosis of prostate cancer were 0.916 (95%CI, 0.896–0.934) and 0.734 (95%CI, 0.685–0.779), respectively. The positive likelihood ratio was 3.593 (95%CI, 2.986–4.323), the negative likelihood ratio was 0.110 (95%CI, 0.083–0.144) and the AUC was 0.96 (95%CI, 0.92–0.98). Our current analysis indicates that the diagnostic performance of [99mTc]Tc-PSMA SPECT/CT in prostate cancer patients is close to that of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA PET/CT. In particular, [99mTc]Tc-PSMA SPECT/CT showed a higher specificity and positive likelihood ratio than [68Ga]Ga-PSMA PET/CT, while its sensitivity, AUC, and negative likelihood ratio were relatively low. At the same time, [99mTc]Tc-PSMA SPECT/CT was superior to [18F]F-FDG PET/CT in terms of sensitivity, the sensitivity of [18F]F-FDG PET/CT is 0.748 (95%CI, 0.698–0.795). [99mTc]Tc-PSMA SPECT/CT was also superior to [18F]F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT and [18F]F-FDG PET/CT in terms of specificity, the specificities of [18F]F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT and [18F]F-FDG PET/CT were 0.878 (95%CI, 0.844–0.907) and 0.639 (95%CI, 0.589–0.687), respectively. Although some of literature have shown that [99mTc]Tc-PSMA SPECT/CT for prostate cancer bone metastasis and lymph node metastasis has good prospects, we were unable to study these aspects in this analysis due to the limited number of literature and extractable data that can be collected [13, 18, 43,44,45].

Three articles were ultimately excluded from the meta-analysis. The article by Duncan, I. et al. [46] was excluded from the study because it highlighted the use of a novel SPECT/CT reconstruction algorithm, which would have led to significant heterogeneity if included in the meta-analysis, and was ultimately excluded from research. Kuru, M. et al. [47] were also excluded from the meta-analysis because they stated that [99mTc]Tc-MIBI-SPECT/CT could not be used as a diagnostic method for prostate cancer. The article by Gatsev, O. et al. [48] was excluded from the study because it did not specify which radiopharmaceuticals were used.

In this meta-analysis, no significant heterogeneity was observed among the included studies. One of the main limitations of our meta-analysis is the small number of studies included, as there are currently only a few clinical trials using [99mTc]Tc-PSMA SPECT/CT for the diagnosis of prostate cancer and our meta-analysis results were based only on patient studies. Subgroup analyses were not performed due to the small amount of literature included. Second, only 2 included studies made explicit statements about blinding. Another limitation is that only 3 studies had sample sizes greater than 50, which may affect the generalizability of the results. Therefore, it is necessary to expand the scope of research in the future, include more literature, and conduct meta-analysis based on lesions to obtain more comprehensive and accurate results. Moreover, this study still needs multi-center, large sample, prospective research to enhance the demonstration intensity.

Conclusions

This study shows that [99mTc]Tc-PSMA SPECT/CT can indeed supplement clinically useful information, particularly in situations where [68Ga]Ga-PSMA PET/CT is not widely available, especially in remote areas. The study findings suggest that [99mTc]Tc-PSMA SPECT/CT has good diagnostic performance for prostate cancer, making it a valuable tool in regions and clinical settings where access to [68Ga]Ga-PSMA PET/CT may be limited. In such cases, [99mTc]Tc-PSMA SPECT/CT can help provide important diagnostic information for prostate cancer patients, aiding in their management and treatment decisions.

Data availability

Full datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Additional data are available in the supplementary materials.

Abbreviations

PCa:

Prostate cancer

PSMA:

Prostate-specific membrane antigen

SPECT:

Single photon emission computed tomography

CT:

Computed tomography

68Ga:

Gallium-68

99mTc:

Technetium-99 m

PET:

Positron emission tomography

DOR:

Diagnostic odds ratio

AUC:

Area under the curve

SROC:

Summary receiver-operating characteristic

LR-:

Negative likelihood ratio

LR+:

Positive likelihood ratio

68Ge/68Ga:

Germanium-68/gallium-68

99Mo/99mTc:

Molybdenum/technetiun-99 m

TP:

True-positive

FP:

False-positive

FN:

False-negative

TN:

True-negative

QUADAS:

Quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies

EAU:

European association of urology

EU:

European unions

US:

United states of america

mpMRI:

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging

References

  1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Caracciolo M, Castello A, Lopci E. PSMA PET/CT Versus mpMRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate Cancer: an updated overview. Semin Nucl Med. 2024;54(1):30–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Schaeffer EM, Srinivas S, Adra N, An Y, Barocas D, Bitting R, Bryce A, Chapin B, Cheng HH, D’Amico AV, et al. Prostate Cancer, Version 4.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Network: JNCCN. 2023;21(10):1067–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. Cancer J Clin. 2023;73(1):17–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cuzick J, Thorat MA, Andriole G, Brawley OW, Brown PH, Culig Z, Eeles RA, Ford LG, Hamdy FC, Holmberg L, et al. Prevention and early detection of prostate cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(11):e484–492.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Uemura M, Watabe T, Hoshi S, Tanji R, Yaginuma K, Kojima Y. The current status of prostate cancer treatment and PSMA theranostics. Therapeutic Adv Med Oncol. 2023;15:17588359231182293.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. O’Keefe DS, Bacich DJ, Huang SS, Heston WDW. A perspective on the Evolving Story of PSMA Biology, PSMA-Based imaging, and endoradiotherapeutic strategies. J Nuclear Medicine: Official Publication Soc Nuclear Med. 2018;59(7):1007–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Haberkorn U, Eder M, Kopka K, Babich JW, Eisenhut M. New strategies in prostate Cancer: prostate-specific membrane Antigen (PSMA) ligands for diagnosis and therapy. Clin cancer Research: Official J Am Association Cancer Res. 2016;22(1):9–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lütje S, Heskamp S, Cornelissen AS, Poeppel TD, van den Broek SA, Rosenbaum-Krumme S, Bockisch A, Gotthardt M, Rijpkema M, Boerman OC. PSMA Ligands for Radionuclide Imaging and Therapy of prostate Cancer: clinical status. Theranostics. 2015;5(12):1388–401.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Roumeguère T, Aoun F, Albisinni S, Mjaess G. Antibodies targeting prostate-specific membrane Antigen positive prostate cancer: from diagnostic imaging to theranostics. Curr Opin Oncol. 2021;33(5):500–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Virgolini I, Decristoforo C, Haug A, Fanti S, Uprimny C. Current status of theranostics in prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45(3):471–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Maurer T, Eiber M, Schwaiger M, Gschwend JE. Current use of PSMA-PET in prostate cancer management. Nat Reviews Urol. 2016;13(4):226–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Albalooshi B, Al Sharhan M, Bagheri F, Miyanath S, Ray B, Muhasin M, Zakavi SR. Direct comparison of (99m)Tc-PSMA SPECT/CT and (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT in patients with prostate cancer. Asia Ocean J Nuclear Med Biology. 2020;8(1):1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Durieux F, Dekyndt B, Legrand JF, Rogeau A, Malek E, Semah F, Odou P. Optimization of Automated Radiosynthesis of Gallium-68-Labeled PSMA11 with two [(68)Ge]Ge/[(68)Ga]Ga generators: fractional elution or prepurification? Pharmaceuticals (Basel Switzerland) 2023, 16(11).

  15. Nawar MF, Türler A. New strategies for a sustainable (99m)tc supply to meet increasing medical demands: promising solutions for current problems. Front Chem. 2022;10:926258.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Duatti A. Review on (99m)tc radiopharmaceuticals with emphasis on new advancements. Nucl Med Biol. 2021;92:202–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lu K, Zhang C, Zhang Z, Kuo HT, Colpo N, Bénard F, Lin KS. Synthesis and evaluation of (99m)Tc-Labeled PSMA-Targeted Tracers based on the Lys-Urea-Aad Pharmacophore for detecting prostate Cancer with single Photon Emission Computed Tomography. Molecules 2023, 28(13).

  18. Lawal IO, Ankrah AO, Mokgoro NP, Vorster M, Maes A, Sathekge MM. Diagnostic sensitivity of Tc-99m HYNIC PSMA SPECT/CT in prostate carcinoma: a comparative analysis with Ga-68 PSMA PET/CT. Prostate. 2017;77(11):1205–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Vargas-Ahumada JE, Gonzalez-Rueda SD, Sinisterra-Solis FA, Casanova-Trivino P, Pitalua-Cortes Q, Soldevilla-Gallardo I, Scavuzzo A, Jimenez-Rios MA, Garcia-Perez FO. Diagnostic Performance of 99mTc-iPSMA SPECT/CT in the Initial Staging of Patients with Unfavorable Intermediate-, High-, and Very High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Comparative Analysis with 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT. Cancers 2023, 15(24).

  20. Wang T, Zhao L, Qiao W, Sun N, Zhao J, Xing Y. The efficacy of 99mTc-HYNIC-PSMA SPECT/CT in detecting primary lesions and metastasis in newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Front Oncol 2023, 13.

  21. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, Leeflang MM, Sterne JA, Bossuyt PM. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Slawin KM, Ellis WJ, Tenke P, Joniau S, Alekseev BY, Buzogány I, Mishugin S, Klein EA, Karnes RJ, Scherr D et al. A phase II study of 99mTc-trofolastat (MIP-1404) SPECT/CT to identify and localize prostate cancer in high-risk patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) and extended pelvic lymph node dissection (EPLND) compared to histopathology: an interim analysis. J Clin Oncol 2014, 32(4).

  23. Farkas I, Besenyi Z, Sipka G, Urbán S, Maráz A, Bajory Z, Pávics L. Detection of primary prostate cancer with 99mTc-PSMASPECT/ CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;47(SUPPL 1):S368.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Agrawal K, Satpati D, Nayak P, Sable M, Padhy BM, Kumar N, Parida GK. Diagnostic performance of Tc-99m PSMA-11 SPECT-CT in prostate carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022;49:S502.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gao Y, Shi J. Clinical application of quantitative 99mTc-HYNIC-PSMA SPECT/CT in prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022;49:S503–4.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Sergieva S, Mangaldgiev R, Dimcheva M, Nedev K, Zahariev Z, Robev B. SPECT-CT imaging with [99mTc]PSMA-T4 in patients with recurrent prostate cancer. Nuclear Med Rev. 2021;24(2):70–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Zhang Y, Shi Y, Ye L, Li T, Wei Y, Lin Z, Chen W. Improving diagnostic efficacy of primary prostate cancer with combined (99m)Tc-PSMA SPECT/CT and multiparametric-MRI and quantitative parameters. Front Oncol. 2023;13:1193370.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Farkas I, Sipka G, Bakos A, Maraz A, Bajory Z, Miko Z, Czekus T, Urban S, Varga L, Pavics L, et al. Diagnostic value of [99mTc]Tc-PSMA-I&S-SPECT/CT for the primary staging and restaging of prostate cancer. Therapeutic Adv Med Oncol. 2024;16:17588359231221342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Vats K, Agrawal K, Sharma R, Sarma HD, Satpati D, Dash A. Preparation and clinical translation of (99m)Tc-PSMA-11 for SPECT imaging of prostate cancer. MedChemComm. 2019;10(12):2111–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Hicks RJ, Hofman MS. Is there still a role for SPECT-CT in oncology in the PET-CT era? Nat Reviews Clin Oncol. 2012;9(12):712–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. van der Meulen NP, Strobel K, Lima TVM. New Radionuclides and Technological Advances in SPECT and PET Scanners. Cancers 2021, 13(24).

  32. Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, Fanti S, Fossati N, Gandaglia G, Gillessen S, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate Cancer-2020 update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2021;79(2):243–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, Collaco-Moraes Y, Ward K, Hindley RG, Freeman A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet (London England). 2017;389(10071):815–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Iacob R, Stoicescu ER, Cerbu S, Manolescu DL, Bardan R, Cumpănaş A. Could Biparametric MRI replace Multiparametric MRI in the management of prostate Cancer? Life (Basel Switzerland) 2023, 13(2).

  35. O’Connor L, Wang A, Walker SM, Yerram N, Pinto PA, Turkbey B. Use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in localized prostate cancer. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2020;17(5):435–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Boesen L. Multiparametric MRI in detection and staging of prostate cancer. Dan Med J 2017, 64(2).

  37. Berger I, Annabattula C, Lewis J, Shetty DV, Kam J, Maclean F, Arianayagam M, Canagasingham B, Ferguson R, Khadra M et al. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT vs. mpMRI for locoregional prostate cancer staging: correlation with final histopathology.

  38. Zhen L, Liu X, Yegang C, Yongjiao Y, Yawei X, Jiaqi K, Xianhao W, Yuxuan S, Rui H, Wei Z, et al. Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing prostate Cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2019;19(1):1244.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Huls SJ, Burkett B, Ehman E, Lowe VJ, Subramaniam RM, Kendi AT. Clinical practice in prostate PET imaging. Therapeutic Adv Med Oncol. 2023;15:17588359231213618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Israel O, Pellet O, Biassoni L, De Palma D, Estrada-Lobato E, Gnanasegaran G, Kuwert T, la Fougère C, Mariani G, Massalha S, et al. Two decades of SPECT/CT - the coming of age of a technology: an updated review of literature evidence. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46(10):1990–2012.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Crișan G, Moldovean-Cioroianu NS, Timaru DG, Andrieș G, Căinap C, Chiș V. Radiopharmaceuticals for PET and SPECT Imaging: A literature review over the last decade. Int J Mol Sci 2022, 23(9).

  42. Yu W, Zhao M, Deng Y, Liu S, Du G, Yan B, Zhao Z, Sun N, Guo J. Meta-analysis of (18) F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT, (18) F-FDG PET/CT, and (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT in diagnostic efficacy of prostate Cancer. Cancer Imaging: Official Publication Int Cancer Imaging Soc. 2023;23(1):77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Zhang Y, Lin Z, Li T, Wei Y, Yu M, Ye L, Cai Y, Yang S, Zhang Y, Shi Y, et al. Head-to-head comparison of (99m)Tc-PSMA and (99m)Tc-MDP SPECT/CT in diagnosing prostate cancer bone metastasis: a prospective, comparative imaging trial. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):15993.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Alemi M, Banouei F, Ahmadi R. Comparison of diagnostic value between < SUP > 99m technetium-methylene diphosphate bone scan and < SUP > 99m technetium-prostate-specific membrane antigen scan in patients with prostate cancer with osseous metastases. INDIAN J NUCLEAR Med. 2023;38(4):340–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Garcia-Perez FO, Davanzo J, Lopez-Buenrostro S, Santos-Cuevas C, Ferro-Flores G, Jimenez-Rios MA, Scavuzzo A, Santana-Rios Z, Medina-Ornelas S. Head to head comparison performance of 99mTc-EDDA/HYNIC-iPSMA SPECT/CT and 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT a prospective study in biochemical recurrence prostate cancer patients. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;8(5):332–40.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Duncan I, Ingold N, Martinez-Marroquin E, Paterson C. An Australian experience using Tc-PSMA SPECT/CT in the primary diagnosis of prostate cancer and for staging at biochemical recurrence after local therapy. Prostate. 2023;83(10):970–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kuru M, Talat Z, Sağer MS, Demirdağ Ç. Technetium-99m-MIBI-SPECT for prostate cancer diagnosis. Ukr J Nephrol Dial. 2020;2020(1):20–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Gatsev O, Mangaldjev R, Dimcheva M, Parvanova V, Nedev K, Zahariev Z, Robev B, Sergieva S, Petkova K, Saltirov I. SPECT-CT imaging with 99mTc-PSMA for the diagnosis of prostate cancer recurrence. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022;39:S61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Qi Wang has received scholarship from China Scholarship Council (CSC No.202208140021). The research is supported by department of nuclear medicine, School of Medicine, Philipps University Marburg. Open access funding provided by the Open Access Publishing Fund of Philipps University Marburg. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Damiano Librizzi and Behrooz H. Yousefi contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Marburg, Philipps University Marburg, Baldinger-Strasse, 35043, Marburg, Germany

    Qi Wang, Svea Ketteler, Shamim Bagheri, Ali Ebrahimifard, Markus Luster, Damiano Librizzi & Behrooz H. Yousefi

  2. Tongji Shanxi Hospital, Shanxi Bethune Hospital, Shanxi Academy of Medical Sciences, Third Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, 030032, China

    Qi Wang

  3. Center for Tumor Biology and Immunology (ZTI), Core Facility Molecular Imaging, Philipps University Marburg, Hans-Meerwein- Str. 3, 35043, Marburg, Germany

    Damiano Librizzi & Behrooz H. Yousefi

Authors
  1. Qi Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Svea Ketteler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shamim Bagheri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ali Ebrahimifard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Markus Luster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Damiano Librizzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Behrooz H. Yousefi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, QW, DL, and BHY; methodology, QW, DL; software, QW, DL,; validation, QW, DL, and BHY; formal analysis, QW; investigation, QW, SK, SB, AE; resources, QW, ML, DL, and BHY; data curation, QW, DL, and BHY; writing—original draft preparation, QW; writing—review and editing, QW, DL, and BHY; visualization, QW, DL, and BHY; supervision, DL, and BHY; project administration, QW, DL, and BHY; funding acquisition, QW, DL, and BHY. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.” Please turn to the CRediT taxonomy for the term explanation. Authorship must be limited to those who have contributed substantially to the work reported. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Behrooz H. Yousefi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, Q., Ketteler, S., Bagheri, S. et al. Diagnostic efficacy of [99mTc]Tc-PSMA SPECT/CT for prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 24, 982 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-12734-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-12734-4

Keywords

BMC Cancer

ISSN: 1471-2407

Contact us