Pitfalls of FDG-PET in the prostate for the surgical oncologist

Ellen O'Connor; Jiasian Teh; Damien Bolton

Urology Case Reports (Nov 2020)

Pitfalls of FDG-PET in the prostate for the surgical oncologist

Ellen O'Connor,
Jiasian Teh,
Damien Bolton

Affiliations

Ellen O'Connor: Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, Australia; Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Corresponding author. Department of Urology, Austin Hospital, Level 8 Harold Stokes Building, 145 Studley Rd, Heidelberg, VIC, 3084, Australia.
Jiasian Teh: Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, Australia; Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
Damien Bolton: Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, Australia

Journal volume & issue: Vol. 33
p. 101262

Abstract

Read online

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.

Published in Urology Case Reports

ISSN: 2214-4420 (Online)
Publisher: Elsevier
Country of publisher: Netherlands
LCC subjects: Medicine: Internal medicine: Specialties of internal medicine: Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology
Website: http://www.urologycasereports.com/

About the journal

Abstract

Keywords