Imaging standardization systems for hybrid PET imaging of prostate cancer with radiolabeled prostate-specific membrane antigen ligands: comparative review of PROMISE and PSMA-RADS version 1.0

This article provides a comparative review of two systems for standardized evaluation of the results of hybrid PET imaging with radiolabeled PSMA ligands – PROMISE and PSMA-RADS version 1.0. The principles of classification, nomenclature and evaluation algorithms, as well as recommendations for structuring research and conclusion protocols, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed systems, are considered in detail.

1. Orel S.G., Kay N., Reynolds C., Sullivan D.C. BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radiology. 1999; 221 (3): 845–850. http://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.211.3.r99jn31845. 2. Weinreb J.C., Barentsz J.O., Choyke P.L., Cornud F., Haider M.A., Macura K.J., Margolis D., Schnall M.D., Shtern F., Tempany C.M., Thoeny H.C., Verma S. PIRADS Prostate ImagingReporting and Data System: 2015, Version

2. Eur. Urol. 2016; 69 (1): 16–40. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052.

3. McKee B.J., Regis S.M., McKee A.B., Flacke S., Wald C. Performance of ACR LungRADS in a clinical CT lung screening program. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2015; 12 (3): 273–276. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2014.08.004

4. Purysko A.S., Remer E.M., Coppa C.P., Leão Filho H.M., Thupili C.R., Veniero J.C. LIRADS: a casebased review of the new categorization of liver findings in patients with endstage liver disease. Radiographics. 2012; 32 (7): 1977–1995. http://doi.org/10.1148/rg.327125026.

5. Tessler F.N., Middleton W.D., Grant E.G., Hoang J.K., Berland L.L., Teefey S.A., Cronan J.J., Beland M.D., Desser T.S., Frates M.C., Hammers L.W., Hamper U.M., Langer J.E., Reading C.C., Scoutt L.M., Stavros A.T. ACR thyroid imaging, reporting and data system (TIRADS): white Paper of the ACR TIRADS committee. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2017; 14 (5): 587–595. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.01.046.

6. Young H., Baum R., Cremerius U., Herholz K., Hoekstra O., Lammertsma A.A., Pruim J., Price P. Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. Eur. J. Cancer. 1999; 35 (13): 1773–1782.

7. Wahl R., Jacene H., Kasamon Y., Lodge M. From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J. Nucl. Med. 2009; 50 (1): 122–150. http://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.108.057307.

8. Cheson B., Fisher R., Barrington S. et al. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of hodgkin and nonhodgkin lymphoma: the lugano classification. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014; 32 (27): 3059–3067. http://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.54.8800.

9. Marcus Ch., Tahari A., Ciarallo A., Wahl R., Subramaniam R. Head and neck PET/CT: therapy response interpretation criteria (‘Hopkins criteria’). J. Nucl. Med. 2014; 55 (1): 344.

10. Rowe S., Pienta K., Pomper M., Gorin M. Structured Reporting System for ProstateSpecific Membrane Antigen-Targeted PET Imaging: PSMARADS Version 1.0. J. Nucl. Med. 2018; 59(3): 479–485. http://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.195255.

11. Eiber M., Herrmann K., Calais J., Hadaschik B., Giesel F.L., Hartenbach M., Hope T., Reiter R., Maurer T., Weber W.A., Fendler W.P. Prostate Cancer Molecular Imaging Standardized Evaluation (PROMISE): Proposed miTNM Classification for the Interpretation of PSMALigand PET/CT. J. Nucl. Med. 2018; 59 (3): 469–478. http://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.198119.