Comparison of mpMRI and 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT in the Assessment of the Primary Tumors in Predominant Low-/Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer

While multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is known to be a specific and reliable modality for the diagnosis of non-metastatic prostate cancer (PC), positron emission tomography (PET) using 68Ga labeled ligands targeting the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is known for its reliable detection of prostate cancer, being the most sensitive modality for the assessment of the extra-prostatic extension of the disease and the establishment of a diagnosis, even before biopsy. Background/Objectives: Here, we compared these modalities in regards to the localization of intraprostatic cancer lesions prior to local HDR brachytherapy. Methods: A cohort of 27 patients received both mpMRI and PSMA-PET/CT. Based on 24 intraprostatic segments, two readers each scored the risk of tumor-like alteration in each imaging modality. The detectability was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. The histopathological findings from biopsy were used as the gold standard in each segment. In addition, we applied a patient-based "congruence" concept to quantify the interobserver and intermodality agreement. Results: For the ROC analysis, we included 447 segments (19 patients), with their respective histological references. The two readers of the MRI reached an AUC of 0.770 and 0.781, respectively, with no significant difference (p = 0.75). The PET/CT readers reached an AUC of 0.684 and 0.608, respectively, with a significant difference (p < 0.001). The segment-wise intermodality comparison showed a significant superiority of MRI (AUC = 0.815) compared to PET/CT (AUC = 0.690) (p = 0.006). Via a patient-based analysis, a superiority of MRI in terms of relative agreement with the biopsy result was observed (n = 19 patients). We found congruence scores of 83% (MRI) and 76% (PET/CT, p = 0.034), respectively. Using an adjusted "near total agreement" score (adjacent segments with positive scores of 4 or 5 counted as congruent), we found an increase in the agreement, with a score of 96.5% for MRI and 92.7% for PET/CT, with significant difference (p = 0.024). Conclusions: This study suggests that in a small collective of low-/intermediate risk prostate cancer, mpMRI is superior for the detection of intraprostatic lesions as compared to PSMA-PET/CT. We also found a higher relative agreement between MRI and biopsy as compared to that for PET/CT. However, further studies including a larger number of patients and readers are necessary to draw solid conclusions.