Navigating the Scoring Systems and Interpretation Frameworks of Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen PET

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET is a powerful tool for prostate cancer staging and restaging, providing higher sensitivity and specificity than conventional imaging. The recognition of interpretive pitfalls led to the development of various scoring systems and frameworks, which in turn created challenges for consistent interpretation. The Prostate Cancer Molecular Imaging Standardized Evaluation (PROMISE) version 2 classification integrates the five-point PRIMARY score for assessing local disease, the molecular imaging TNM stage for disease extent, and the PSMA expression score to assess eligibility for PSMA-targeted radioligand therapy. The PSMA Reporting and Data System (PSMA-RADS) classifies PSMA PET/CT findings on the basis of the likelihood of presence of prostate cancer. For assessing therapy response, PSMA PET Progression (PPP) criteria focus on new lesions and clinical or biochemical progression, whereas Response Evaluation Criteria in PSMA PET/CT (RECIP 1.0) assess new lesions and changes in total PSMA-positive total tumor volume. The European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) E-PSMA guideline and EANM-Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging procedure guidelines provide standardized reporting recommendations, incorporating elements from existing systems such as PROMISE, PSMA-RADS, and PPP. Nevertheless, such systems can be essential for optimizing prostate cancer management and facilitating communication among imaging professionals, clinicians, and patients. This article outlines these systems and discusses potential strengths and weaknesses.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Radiology
Published
2025-12-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.250701
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Prostate Cancer Treatment and Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.52
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Navigating the Scoring Systems and Interpretation Frameworks of Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen PET

Hebert Alberto Vargas, Ken Herrmann, Sungmin Woo, Andrea Laghi et al.
1 citations
Radiology
Prostate Cancer Treatment and Research
1.52
article

Navigating the Scoring Systems and Interpretation Frameworks of Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen PET

Hebert Alberto Vargas, Ken Herrmann, Sungmin Woo, Andrea Laghi, Benedetta Masci, Stacy Loeb, Irene A. Burger, Stefano Fanti, Steven P. Rowe, Matthias Eiber, Damiano Caruso
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET is a powerful tool for prostate cancer staging and restaging, providing higher sensitivity and specificity than conventional imaging. The recognition of interpretive pitfalls led to the development of various scoring systems and frameworks, which in turn created challenges for consistent interpretation. The Prostate Cancer Molecular Imaging Standardized Evaluation (PROMISE) version 2 classification integrates the five-point PRIMARY score for assessing local disease, the molecular imaging TNM stage for disease extent, and the PSMA expression score to assess eligibility for PSMA-targeted radioligand therapy. The PSMA Reporting and Data System (PSMA-RADS) classifies PSMA PET/CT findings on the basis of the likelihood of presence of prostate cancer. For assessing therapy response, PSMA PET Progression (PPP) criteria focus on new lesions and clinical or biochemical progression, whereas Response Evaluation Criteria in PSMA PET/CT (RECIP 1.0) assess new lesions and changes in total PSMA-positive total tumor volume. The European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) E-PSMA guideline and EANM-Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging procedure guidelines provide standardized reporting recommendations, incorporating elements from existing systems such as PROMISE, PSMA-RADS, and PPP. Nevertheless, such systems can be essential for optimizing prostate cancer management and facilitating communication among imaging professionals, clinicians, and patients. This article outlines these systems and discusses potential strengths and weaknesses.

RadiologyVol. 317(3)
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US), Humanitas University (IT), University of Zurich (CH), Veterans Health Administration (US), TUM Klinikum (DE), NYU Langone Health (US), Manhattan Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (US), University Hospital of Zurich (CH), Azienda USL di Bologna (IT), Essen University Hospital (DE), Kantonsspital Baden (CH), Azienda Ospedaliera Sant'Andrea (IT), Department of Veterans Affairs (AU), West German Heart and Vascular Center Essen (DE), IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital (IT), Deutsches Konsortium für Translationale Krebsforschung (DE), New York University (US), University of Duisburg-Essen (DE), Technical University of Munich (DE), University of Bologna (IT)
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
Prostate Cancer Treatment and Research
1.52
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.