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 | 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: | https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/23473 | DOI: | 10.1016/j.eucr.2020.101262 | ORCID: | 0000-0002-7882-5155 0000-0002-5145-6783 |
Journal: | Urology case reports | 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
Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.