Table 1.
Studies That Assessed Impact of PSMA PET/CT on SRT Planning
| Author | Year | n | PSA (ng/ml) Median (range) | PSMA+ | Extrapelvic PSMA+ | Any SRT Planning Change | SRT Considered Futile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shakespeare | 2015 | 18 | 1.1 (0.017–20.4) | NA | NA | 46% | NA |
| van Leeuwen | 2015 | 70 | 0.2 (0.05–0.99) | 55% | 6% | 35% | 7% |
| Sterzing | 2016 | 42 | 2.8 (0.16–113) | 60% | NA | 61% | NA |
| Bluemel | 2016 | 45 | 0.67 (0.10–11.2) | 54% | 9% | 42% | 4% |
| Albisinni | 2016 | 48 | 2.2 (0.72–6.7) | NA | NA | 76% | NA |
| Schiller | 2017 | 31 | 0.71 (0.12–14.7) | 100% | 3% | 87% | 0% |
| Henkenberens | 2017 | 39 | 1.2 (0.3–15.5) | 85% | 46% | 59% | 13% |
| Schmidt-Hegemann | 2017 | 49 | 0.49 (0.15–6.24) | NA | 4% | 57% | NA |
| Habl | 2017 | 83 | 0.69 (0.09–14.7) | 71% | 10% | 57% | 0% |
| De Bari | 2018 | 12 | 0.51 (0.10–1.62) | NA | NA | 17% | 8% |
| Koerber | 2018 | 71 | 1.2 (0.03–41.24) | NA | 51% | 54% | 3% |
| Frenzel | 2018 | 75 | 0.2 (0.02–653.2) | NA | NA | 43% | NA |
| Farolfi | 2018 | 119 | 0.32 (0.20–0.50) | 35% | 21% | 30% | 18% |
| Calais | 2018 | 270 | 0.48 (0.03–1.0) | 49% | 13% | 19% | 12% |