In the Alpine region, the continuous consumption of open spaces for settlement areas and technical infrastructure and the associated soil sealing can be observed. This leads primarily to the loss of agricultural land. Depending on the extent of development, there is also increased landscape fragmentation, which is associated with the isolation of natural habitats and the restriction of ecological connectivity, as well as other negative consequences. The OpenSpaceAlps project has addressed this issue and, based on cooperative procedures in several pilot regions, has developed approaches and solution strategies for the sustainable safeguarding of open spaces. This handbook supports the activities and decision-making of various stakeholders, first and foremost planners in public planning authorities. Based on an analysis of the challenges and framework conditions in the Alpine region, the handbook presents and compares central "principles" of open space planning. Furthermore, integrated planning strategies for different spatial categories are discussed.

Im Alpenraum lässt sich nach wie vor die kontinuierliche Inanspruchnahme von Freiräumen für Siedlungsflächen und technische Infrastrukturen und die damit verbundene Bodenversiegelung beobachten. Dies führt in erster Linie zum Verlust von landwirtschaftlichen Flächen. Je nach Ausmaß der Bebauung kommt es auch zu einer verstärkten Landschaftszerschneidung, die zur Isolierung natürlicher Lebensräume und zur Einschränkung des ökologischen Verbundes sowie zu weiteren negativen Folgewirkungen führt. Das OpenSpaceAlps Projekt hat sich dieser Thematik angenommen und, basierend auf kooperativen Verfahren in mehreren Pilotregionen, Handlungsansätze und Strategien für eine nachhaltige Sicherung von Freiräumen entwickelt. Dieses Handbuch stellt eine Handlungs- und Entscheidungshilfe für verschiedene Akteure/Akteurinnen dar, allen voran Planer*innen in öffentlichen Planungsbehörden. Ausgehend von einer Analyse der Herausforderungen und Rahmenbedingungen im Alpenraum, werden in diesem Handbuch zentrale „Prinzipien“ der Freiraumplanung vorgestellt und verglichen. Außerdem werden integrierte Planungsstrategien für verschiedene Raumkategorien diskutiert.

[\(^{18}\)F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET and [\(^{123}\)I]metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) scintigraphy may contribute to the differential diagnosis of neurodegenerative parkinsonism. To identify the superior method, we retrospectively evaluated 54 patients with suspected neurodegenerative parkinsonism, who were referred for FDG PET and MIBG scintigraphy. Two investigators visually assessed FDG PET scans using an ordinal 6-step score for disease-specific patterns of Lewy body diseases (LBD) or atypical parkinsonism (APS) and assigned the latter to the subgroups multiple system atrophy (MSA), progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), or corticobasal syndrome. Regions-of-interest analysis on anterior planar MIBG images served to calculate the heart-to-mediastinum ratio. Movement disorder specialists blinded to imaging results established clinical follow-up diagnosis by means of guideline-derived case vignettes. Clinical follow-up (1.7 +/- 2.3 years) revealed the following diagnoses: n = 19 LBD (n = 17 Parkinson's disease [PD], n = 1 PD dementia, and n = 1 dementia with Lewy bodies), n = 31 APS (n = 28 MSA, n = 3 PSP), n = 3 non-neurodegenerative parkinsonism; n = 1 patient could not be diagnosed and was excluded. Receiver operating characteristic analyses for discriminating LBD vs. non-LBD revealed a larger area under the curve for FDG PET than for MIBG scintigraphy at statistical trend level for consensus rating (0.82 vs. 0.69, p = 0.06; significant for investigator #1: 0.83 vs. 0.69, p = 0.04). The analysis of PD vs. MSA showed a similar difference (0.82 vs. 0.69, p = 0.11; rater #1: 0.83 vs. 0.69, p = 0.07). Albeit the notable differences in diagnostic performance did not attain statistical significance, the authors consider this finding clinically relevant and suggest that FDG PET, which also allows for subgrouping of APS, should be preferred.

Simple Summary Discordant FDG-positive but PSMA-negative (FDG+/PSMA−) metastases constitute a negative prognostic marker of overall survival in patients undergoing PSMA radioligand therapy (RLT). The aim of this analysis was to investigate the prognostic implications of new FDG+/PSMA− lesions, which occur during or after PSMA RLT. In a retrospective bicentric analysis of 32 patients undergoing PSMA RLT and follow-up dual tracer staging with PSMA and FDG PET/CT, FDG+/PSMA− lesions occurred in a limited number of patients. However, the presence of FDG+/PSMA− lesions appears not to have a significant impact on the OS, but further studies are needed to establish the clinical relevance of such lesions. Abstract Introduction: Positron emission tomography/computer tomography (PET/CT) targeting the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is crucial for the assessment of adequate PSMA expression in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) prior to PSMA radioligand therapy (PSMA RLT). Moreover, initial dual tracer staging using combined PSMA and [\(^{18}\)F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT provides relevant information, since discordant FDG-positive but PSMA-negative (FDG+/PSMA−) lesions constitute a negative prognostic marker of overall survival (OS) after PSMA RLT. However, little is known about the prognostic implications of dual tracer imaging for restaging at follow-up. The aim of this analysis was to investigate the prognostic implications of new FDG+/PSMA− lesions during or after PSMA RLT. Methods: This bicentric analysis included 32 patients with mCRPC who underwent both FDG and PSMA PET/CT imaging after two or four cycles of PSMA RLT. Patients with FDG+/PSMA− lesions prior to PSMA RLT were not considered. The presence of FDG+/PSMA− lesions was assessed with follow-up dual tracer imaging of patients after two or four cycles of PSMA RLT. Patients with at least one new FDG+/PSMA− lesion were compared to patients without any FDG+/PSMA− lesions at the respective time points. A log-rank analysis was used to assess the difference in OS between subgroups. Results: After two cycles of PSMA RLT, four of 32 patients (13%) had FDG+/PSMA− metastases. No significant difference in OS was observed (p = 0.807), as compared to patients without FDG+/PSMA− lesions. Follow-up dual tracer imaging after the 4th cycle of PSMA RLT was available in 18 patients. Of these, four patients presented with FDG+/PSMA− findings (n = 2 already after two cycles). After the fourth cycle of PSMA RLT, no significant difference in OS was observed between patients with and without FDG+/PSMA− lesions (p = 0.442). Conclusion: This study shows that FDG+/PSMA− lesions develop in a limited number of patients undergoing PSMA RLT. Further studies are needed to establish the clinical relevance of such lesions.