Qualitative Data Are Lacking

Letters to the Editor Imaging of Prostate Cancer by Prof. Dr. med. Dipl.-Phys. Heinz-Peter Schlemmer, Prof. Dr. med. Bernd Joachim Krause, Dr. med. Viktoria Schütz, Prof. Dr. med. David Bonekamp, PD Dr. med. Sarah Marie Schwarzenböck, and Prof. Dr. med. Markus Hohenfellner in issue 42/2021

In the article (1) the numerous calculated values in many cases feature two decimals after the comma—this is in direct contrast to the lack of precision where qualitative data are concerned. Take, for example, “Molecular PET hybrid imaging uses a small molecule as a radiopharmaceutical, which selectively binds to PSMA and thereby enables detection/diagnostic evaluation with high specificity and sensitivity.” Unfortunately the authors omitted to mention that it is not exactly known with which structures this “small molecule” selectively binds—which is crucial for specificity. A bone fracture contracted months before can thus be confused with a metastasis. I also missed the unequivocal statement that PET hybrid imaging is not recommended for the primary diagnosis of prostate cancer. Unfortunately this method is increasingly used for exactly this purpose—ignoring the guidelines.

DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.m2022.0114

Dr. med. Wolfgang Bruder

München

Conflict of interest statement

The author declares that no conflict of interest exists.

References

1. Schlemmer HP, Krause BJ, Schütz V, Bonekamp D, Schwarzenböck S, Hohenfellner M: Imaging of prostate cancer. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2021; 118: 713–9