Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/23473
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
metadata.dc.date: 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.
URI: http://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/23473
DOI: 10.1016/j.eucr.2020.101262
ORCID: 0000-0002-7882-5155
0000-0002-5145-6783
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)

18
checked on Dec 6, 2022

Google ScholarTM

Check


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