1. PET/CT has emerged as a promising imaging modality for prostate cancer detection.
2. Different radiolabelled tracers have been used to detect prostate cancer, including 18F-NaF PET/CT, choline-based PET/CT, fluciclovine PET/CT and PSMA-targeted PET/CT.
3. Newer tracers have increased detection accuracies for small, incipient metastatic foci, but their efficacy needs to be confirmed in larger series.
The article is generally reliable and trustworthy in its reporting of the use of PET/CT in prostate cancer detection. The authors provide an overview of the different radiolabelled tracers that have been used for this purpose, as well as their respective advantages and disadvantages. They also discuss the potential implications of these findings for clinical practice.
However, there are some potential biases that should be noted. For example, the authors do not explore any counterarguments or alternative perspectives on the use of PET/CT in prostate cancer detection. Additionally, they do not discuss any possible risks associated with using these tracers or present both sides of the argument equally. Furthermore, there is a lack of evidence provided to support some of the claims made in the article, such as those regarding the efficacy of newer tracers for detecting small metastatic foci. Finally, there is a lack of discussion about how these findings could be applied in clinical practice or what further research is needed to confirm their efficacy.