00.79); involving 68 Ga-PSMA and 68 GaDOTA-RM2 = 0.41 (variety: 0.05.72); while the DICE score among 68 Ga-DOTA-RM
00.79); amongst 68 Ga-PSMA and 68 GaDOTA-RM2 = 0.41 (range: 0.05.72); when the DICE score between 68 Etiocholanolone In Vivo Ga-DOTA-RM2 and MRI = 0.36 (variety: 0.07.72). DICE scores for every single patient across the investigated modalities are reported in Table 6 (Figure 6).Table 6. DICE scores. n. 1 two 3 4 five 6 7 eight 9 1068 Ga-PSMAvs. MRI68 Ga-DOTA-RM2 vs.MRI68 Ga-PSMA vs. 68 Ga-DOTA-RM0.7151 LNI 0.7684 0.0000 0.7354 0.7907 0.3697 0.4178 0.7581 0.7057 0.0.5189 0.6052 0.0859 0.0728 0.3723 0.5872 0.3529 0.4331 0.7220 0.5761 0.0.6521 LNI 0.1188 0.1524 0.4544 0.4856 0.5571 0.5981 0.6019 0.7174 0.68Ga-PSMA vs. MRI 68Ga-DOTA-RM2 vs. MRI 68Ga-PSMA vs. 68Ga-DOTA-RM2 n. 1 0.7151 0.5189 0.6521 two LNI 0.6052 LNI three 0.7684 0.0859 0.1188 Diagnostics 2021, 11, 2068 15 of 20 four 0.0000 0.0728 0.1524 five 0.7354 0.3723 0.4544 6 0.7907 0.5872 0.4856 7 0.3697 Table six. Cont. 0.3529 0.5571 eight 0.4178 0.4331 0.5981 68 Ga-PSMA vs. 68 Ga-PSMA vs. MRI 68 Ga-DOTA-RM2 vs. MRI n. 68 Ga-DOTA-RM2 9 0.7581 0.7220 0.6019 ten 0.7057 0.7174 0.5357 12 0.6056 0.5761 0.4023 11 0.7810 0.6259 0.6828 13 0.5013 0.2749 0.3654 12 0.6056 0.4023 0.5357 14 0.6162 0.2216 0.2918 13 0.5013 0.2749 0.3654 15 LNI LNI 0.2157 14 0.6162 0.2216 0.2918 16 0 0.0971 15 LNI LNI 0.2157 0.0514 17 0.6062 0.0971 0.1040 16 0 0.0514 0.1461 18 0.0671 0.1040 LNI 17 0.6062 0.1461 LNI 18 0.0671 LNI NA 19 0.4751 LNI NA 19 0.4751 NA NA NA 20 0.5526 NA 20 0.5526 NA NA 21 0.5769 NA NA 21 0.5769 NA NA 22 0.0997 0.3667 0.3667 22 0.0997 0.3667 0.3667 Imply 0.5071 0.3560 0.4114 Imply 0.5071 0.3560 0.4114 SD 0.2677 0.2292 0.2292 SD 0.2677 0.2292 0.LNI: Lesion not identified inside a distinct modality, DICE score be Compound 48/80 manufacturer calculated, NA: Not available. LNI: Lesion not identified inside a precise modality, DICE score could notcould not be calculated, NA: Not readily available.Figure six. Images representing concordant (A) and discordant (B) contouring on DICE analysis. (A): Figure 6. Images representing concordant (A) and discordant (B) contouring on DICE analysis. (A): A A 74 years-old patient with biopsy-proven PCa (pt n. 9), Gleason score 9 (5 + four) with a PSA level at 74diagnosis of six.37 ng/mLbiopsy-proven PCa (pt n. 9),positioned inscore 9 (five + 4) withgland. The image years-old patient with presenting a prostatic lesion Gleason the left lobe from the a PSA level at diagnosis of 6.37 ng/mL presenting a prostatic lesion located inside the left lobe of your gland. The image shows a concordant identification of your lesion on 68 Ga-PSMA PET pictures (blue), 68 Ga-DOTA-RM2 PET images (yellow) and MRI (red). DICE SCORE: 68 Ga-PSMA vs. 68 Ga-DOTA-RM2 = 0.6019, 68 Ga-PSMA vs. MRI = 0.7581. 68 Ga-DOTA-RM2 vs. MRI = 0.7220. (B): A 52 years-old patient with biopsy-proven PCa (pt n. 14), Gleason score 8 (four + 4) with a PSA level at diagnosis of eight.04 ng/mL presenting a focal left prostatic. DICE SCORE: 68 Ga-PSMA vs. 68 Ga-DOTA-RM2 = 0.2918, 68 Ga-PSMA vs. MRI = 0.6162. 68 Ga-DOTA-RM2 vs. MRI = 0.2216.three.4. Correlations in between PET Semi-Quantitative and MRI Quantitative Imaging parameters None of the investigated semi-quantitative 68 Ga-PSMA PET parameters drastically correlated with its correspondent parameter on 68 Ga-DOTA-RM2 PET pictures, having said that, the volume with the main tumour manually segmented on 68 Ga-PSMA PET was hugely correlated using the one manually contoured on MR images (rho = 0.697, p = 0.003). MRI quantitative parameters didn’t correlate with 68 Ga-DOTA-RM2 PET semi-quantitative parameters. Tumour volume manually segmented on MR images presented a moderate association with GS that appr.