Publications by authors named "W Fendler"

The superiority of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) over conventional staging methods such as computed tomography (CT) and bone scintigraphy has now been demonstrated for almost all clinical stages of prostate cancer. In primary diagnostics, PSMA-PET/CT is therefore the new standard for risk-adapted whole-body staging. At the same time, PSMA-PET/CT provides a new risk-based classification for predicting overall survival across all early and late stages of the disease.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

The Co-IMPACT consortium addresses knowledge gaps in prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography-guided radiotherapy for prostate cancer by establishing a global database (46 centres from 16 countries) to standardise and analyse data across four distinguished clinical scenarios. A collaborative model with the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference aligns urgent clinical needs with actionable research insights.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Purpose: PSMA-PET is a reference standard examination for patients with prostate cancer, but even using recently introduced digital PET detectors image acquisition with standard field-of-view scanners is still in the range of 20 min. This may cause limited access to examination slots because of the growing demand for PSMA-PET. Ultra-fast PSMA-PET may enhance throughput but comes at the cost of poor image quality.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF
Article Synopsis
  • The study compares the definitions of high-volume disease (HVD) and low-volume disease (LVD) in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) patients using both conventional imaging (CI) and prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET imaging, highlighting the need for more accurate definitions for treatment decisions.
  • Researchers analyzed data from 67 mHSPC patients across five international sites who had both PSMA PET and CI scans within a specific timeframe, assessing how many were classified as HVD or LVD based on each imaging method.
  • Results showed a significant discrepancy in classification: 25.4% of patients were identified as HVD using CI, while 40.3% were identified as HVD using
View Article and Find Full Text PDF