Background: Recently it has been demonstrated that after selenium (Se) supplementation in autoimmune thyroiditis (AIT) patients, there was a significant decrease of thyroid peroxidase (TPO) autoantibody (TPOAb) levels. The aim of our study was to evaluate the immunological benefit of Se administration in unselected AIT patients and thus address the question whether Se administration should generally be recommended for AIT patients. Methods: Thirty-six consecutive AIT patients (aged 19–85 years) were included in the present study. In addition to their levothyroxine (LT₄) treatment, 18 patients received 200 μg (2.53 μmol) sodium selenite per day orally for the time span of 3 months, whereas 18 patients received placebo. All patients had measurement of thyroid hormones, thyrotropin (TSH), autoantibodies (thyroglobulin antibodies [TgAb] and TPOAb), Se levels, and intracellular cytokine detection in CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) by flow cytometry before and after Se or placebo administration. Results: No significant difference in the TPOAb levels was found after Se administration (524 ± 452 vs. 505 ± 464 IU/mL; p > 0.05). Furthermore, we found no significant differences in the CD4⁺ or CD8⁺ cytokine pattern (IFN-γ, IL-2, IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, IL-10, IL-13, TNF-α, TNF-β) in patients before and after Se administration, in patients before and after placebo administration and between Se group and placebo group before and after Se vs. placebo administration. Conclusion: We demonstrate that Se administration in our AIT patient's cohort does not induce significant immunological changes, either in terms of cytokine production patterns of peripheral T lymphocytes or of TPOAb levels. Our data suggest that AIT patients with moderate disease activity (in terms of TPOAb and cytokine production patterns) may not (equally) benefit as patients with high disease activity.

'See what you treat and treat what you see, at a molecular level', could be the motto of theranostics. The concept implies diagnosis (imaging) and treatment of cells (usually cancer) using the same molecule, thus guaranteeing a targeted cytotoxic approach of the imaged tumor cells while sparing healthy tissues. As the brilliant late Sam Gambhir would say, the imaging agent acts like a 'molecular spy' and reveals where the tumoral cells are located and the extent of disease burden (diagnosis). For treatment, the same 'molecular spy' docks to the same tumor cells, this time delivering cytotoxic doses of radiation (treatment). This duality represents the concept of a 'theranostic pair', which follows the scope and fundamental principles of targeted precision and personalized medicine.

Targeting tumor-expressed receptors using selective molecules for diagnostic, therapeutic or both diagnostic and therapeutic (theragnostic) purposes is a promising approach in oncological applications. Such approaches have increased significantly over the past decade. Peptides such as gastrin-releasing peptide receptors (GRPR) targeting radiopharmaceuticals are small molecules with fast blood clearance and urinary excretion. They demonstrate good tissue diffusion, low immunogenicity, and highly selective binding to their target cell-surface receptors. They are also easily produced. GRPR, part of the bombesin (BBN) family, are overexpressed in many tumors, including breast and prostate cancer, and therefore represent an attractive target for future development.

Positron emission tomography (PET) using radiolabeled prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is now more and more widely adopted as a valuable tool to evaluate patients with prostate cancer (PC). Recently, three different criteria for interpretation of PSMA PET were published: European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) criteria, prostate cancer molecular imaging standardized evaluation (PROMISE) criteria, and PSMA-reporting and data system (PSMA-RADS). We compared these three criteria in terms of inter-reader, intra-reader, and inter-criteria agreement. Methods: Data from 104 patients prospectively enrolled in research protocols at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. The cohort consisted of two groups: 47 patients (mean age: 64.2 years old) who underwent Glu-NH-CO-NH-Lys-(Ahx)-[⁶⁸Ga(HBED-CC)] (⁶⁸Ga-PSMA11) PET/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for initial staging of biopsy-proven intermediate- or high-risk PC, and 57 patients (mean age: 70.5 years old) who underwent ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA11 PET/computed tomography (CT) due to biochemically recurrent (BCR) PC. Three nuclear medicine physicians independently evaluated all ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA11 PET/MRI and PET/CT studies according to the three interpretation criteria. Two of them reevaluated all studies 6 months later in the same manner and blinded to the initial reading. Gwet’s AC was calculated to evaluate inter- and intra-reader, and inter-criteria agreement based on the following sites: local lesion (primary tumor or prostate bed after radical prostatectomy), lymph node metastases, and other metastases. Results: In the PET/MRI group, inter-reader, intra-reader, and inter-criteria agreements were substantial to almost perfect in any sites according to all of the three criteria. In the PET/CT group, inter-reader agreement was substantial to almost perfect except judgement of distant metastases based on PSMA-RADS (Gwet’s AC = 0.57, moderate agreement), in which the most frequent cause of disagreement was lung nodules. Intra-reader agreements were substantial to almost perfect in any sites according to all of the three criteria. Inter-criteria agreements of each site were also substantial to almost perfect. Conclusion: Although the three published criteria have good inter-reader and intra-reader reproducibility in evaluating ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA11 PET, there are factors bringing inter-reader disagreement. This indicates that further work is needed to address the issue.