Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Pitfalls of FDG-PET in the prostate for the surgical oncologist.
Austin Authors: O'Connor, Ellen ;Teh, Jiasian ;Bolton, Damien M 
Affiliation: Department of Surgery, Austin Health, The University of Melbourne, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
Issue Date: Nov-2020 2020-05-22
Publication information: Urology case reports 2020; 33: 101262
Abstract: A 78-year-old man was referred for investigation of prostate cancer following incidental uptake on 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET). Despite normal PSA and benign digital rectal exam, he was referred for consideration of trans-perineal biopsy to exclude prostate cancer. It was only on review of imaging that it became clearly apparent that the 18F-FDG uptake was due to urinary tracer pooling in a trans-urethral resection cavity. Surgeons, oncologists and nuclear medicine physicians should be aware of this common pitfall in interpretation of 18F-FDG-PET in the prostate.
DOI: 10.1016/j.eucr.2020.101262
ORCID: 0000-0002-7882-5155
PubMed URL: 32489895
ISSN: 2214-4420
Type: Journal Article
Subjects: Incidental findings
Positron-emission tomography
Prostatic neoplasms
Transurethral resection of prostate
Appears in Collections:Journal articles

Show full item record

Page view(s)

checked on Dec 6, 2022

Google ScholarTM


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.