Molecular PET Imaging Versus Conventional Imaging for Detection of Mandibular Metastases in Prostate Cancer: A Paired Retrospective Study
4 affiliations
- 1Department of Surgery, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
- 2Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
- 3Department of Surgery, October 6 University Faculty of Medicine, Cairo 12585, Egypt
- 4Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
Abstract
Purpose: Maxillofacial metastases from prostate cancer account for 9–11% of metastatic jaw lesions. The optimal imaging technique for suspected maxillofacial metastases remains undefined. Conventional imaging often lacks sensitivity for early disease, while PET/CT may be limited due to physiologic tracer uptake in adjacent salivary glands. With increasing use of PET/CT in advanced prostate cancer, its diagnostic performance in the mandibular region requires further evaluation. Methods: We conducted a single-institution paired retrospective study using the prospectively maintained Mayo Clinic Advanced Prostate Cancer Registry. Patients with clinically confirmed mandibular metastases who underwent molecular PET/CT ([68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 or [11C]choline) and conventional imaging (CT or MRI) within 1 month were included. All studies were blindly reviewed by a nuclear medicine physician. Detection rates, anatomic distribution, and quantitative imaging parameters were assessed. Paired detection rates were compared using a one-sided exact McNemar test, with a two-sided exact test performed as a sensitivity analysis. Results: Eighteen patients with clinically confirmed mandibular metastases underwent 36 paired imaging evaluations (18 molecular PET/CT and 18 conventional studies). The median age was 70.5 years (IQR, 60–77), and the median Gleason score was 8 (IQR, 7–9). When mandibular metastasis was detected, 56% of our cohort had hormone-sensitive and 44% had castration-resistant disease. Molecular PET/CT detected mandibular involvement in 18/18 patients (100%; 95% CI, 81–100%) versus 13/18 (72.2%; 95% CI, 47–90%) with conventional imaging. All five discordant cases were detected by molecular PET/CT but not conventional imaging, with no discordant cases favoring conventional imaging (one-sided exact McNemar p = 0.031; two-sided p = 0.063). Mandibular involvement was predominantly unilateral (94.4%), most commonly involving the body (50%), followed by the ramus (27.8%) and condyle (16.6%). The median SUVmax was 6.3 (IQR, 4.4–16.9) for PSMA PET/CT and 4.3 (IQR, 3.8–8.5) for choline PET/CT; the median lesion volume was 5.0 mL (IQR, 1.1–11.3). Conclusions: Molecular PET/CT identified all clinically confirmed mandibular prostate cancer metastases in this paired cohort, including five cases not detected by conventional imaging. Despite physiologic tracer uptake in adjacent salivary structures, mandibular metastatic disease remained detectable on molecular imaging. These findings suggest that molecular PET/CT may provide complementary value when mandibular metastasis is suspected, particularly when conventional imaging is negative or equivocal.
Related
- Comparison of piezosurgery vs. conventional bone chisel for extraction of impacted mandibular third molars with root–canal intimacy: a retrospective cohort study with CBCT-based preoperative planning
- Clinicopathologic features and prognostic factors of breast cancer brain metastases patients based on molecular subtypes: a real-world retrospective analysis
- Association of Mandibular Morphological and Trabecular Bone Characteristics with Long-Term Outcomes Following First Permanent Molar Extraction: A Retrospective Study
- Association Between HIV-1 RNA Detection Status and HBV DNA Detection: A Patient-Level Retrospective Longitudinal Molecular Study from Istanbul, Türkiye.
- Occult metastases detection and impact on management in renal cell carcinoma imaged with [89Zr]Zr-girentuximab
BibTeX
@article{mahmoud2026molecular,
title = {{Molecular PET Imaging Versus Conventional Imaging for Detection of Mandibular Metastases in Prostate Cancer: A Paired Retrospective Study}},
author = {Mervat E. Mahmoud and Nur Dizdar and Ahmed E. Ahmed and Eman E. Ahmed and Mindie Mahon and Rimki Haloi and Eugene D. Kwon and Jack Andrews and William Jonathan Fillmore and Ayse T. Kendi},
journal = {Cancers},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3390/cancers18213436},
url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/18/21/3436},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Molecular PET Imaging Versus Conventional Imaging for Detection of Mandibular Metastases in Prostate Cancer: A Paired Retrospective Study
AU - Mervat E. Mahmoud
AU - Nur Dizdar
AU - Ahmed E. Ahmed
AU - Eman E. Ahmed
AU - Mindie Mahon
AU - Rimki Haloi
AU - Eugene D. Kwon
AU - Jack Andrews
AU - William Jonathan Fillmore
AU - Ayse T. Kendi
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/24
JO - Cancers
DO - 10.3390/cancers18213436
UR - https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/18/21/3436
AB - Purpose: Maxillofacial metastases from prostate cancer account for 9–11% of metastatic jaw lesions. The optimal imaging technique for suspected maxillofacial metastases remains undefined. Conventional imaging often lacks sensitivity for early disease, while PET/CT may be limited due to physiologic tracer uptake in adjacent salivary glands. With increasing use of PET/CT in advanced prostate cancer, its diagnostic performance in the mandibular region requires further evaluation. Methods: We conducted a single-institution paired retrospective study using the prospectively maintained Mayo Clinic Advanced Prostate Cancer Registry. Patients with clinically confirmed mandibular metastases who underwent molecular PET/CT ([68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 or [11C]choline) and conventional imaging (CT or MRI) within 1 month were included. All studies were blindly reviewed by a nuclear medicine physician. Detection rates, anatomic distribution, and quantitative imaging parameters were assessed. Paired detection rates were compared using a one-sided exact McNemar test, with a two-sided exact test performed as a sensitivity analysis. Results: Eighteen patients with clinically confirmed mandibular metastases underwent 36 paired imaging evaluations (18 molecular PET/CT and 18 conventional studies). The median age was 70.5 years (IQR, 60–77), and the median Gleason score was 8 (IQR, 7–9). When mandibular metastasis was detected, 56% of our cohort had hormone-sensitive and 44% had castration-resistant disease. Molecular PET/CT detected mandibular involvement in 18/18 patients (100%; 95% CI, 81–100%) versus 13/18 (72.2%; 95% CI, 47–90%) with conventional imaging. All five discordant cases were detected by molecular PET/CT but not conventional imaging, with no discordant cases favoring conventional imaging (one-sided exact McNemar p = 0.031; two-sided p = 0.063). Mandibular involvement was predominantly unilateral (94.4%), most commonly involving the body (50%), followed by the ramus (27.8%) and condyle (16.6%). The median SUVmax was 6.3 (IQR, 4.4–16.9) for PSMA PET/CT and 4.3 (IQR, 3.8–8.5) for choline PET/CT; the median lesion volume was 5.0 mL (IQR, 1.1–11.3). Conclusions: Molecular PET/CT identified all clinically confirmed mandibular prostate cancer metastases in this paired cohort, including five cases not detected by conventional imaging. Despite physiologic tracer uptake in adjacent salivary structures, mandibular metastatic disease remained detectable on molecular imaging. These findings suggest that molecular PET/CT may provide complementary value when mandibular metastasis is suspected, particularly when conventional imaging is negative or equivocal.
SN - 2072-6694
ER -