1
|
Antonarakis ES, Shui IM, Zaidi O, Bernauer M, Gratzke C. Current Treatment Paradigms and Clinical Outcomes in Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer Patients: A Targeted Literature Review. Eur Urol Oncol 2024; 7:1280-1292. [PMID: 38964996 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2024.06.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/27/2024] [Revised: 05/10/2024] [Accepted: 06/07/2024] [Indexed: 07/06/2024]
Abstract
CONTEXT Prostate cancer is the most common noncutaneous malignancy among men in the USA and Europe. There is no consensus definition of oligometastatic prostate cancer (omPC), which is often considered in two subgroups, synchronous (de novo) and metachronous (oligorecurrent), and may include patients with a low metastatic disease burden. OBJECTIVE To summarize the epidemiology, disease definitions, mortality/survival outcomes, and treatment characteristics in both clinical trial and real-world settings among patients with synchronous, metachronous, and mixed-subtype (ie, synchronous and metachronous or undefined type) omPC, as well as low burden disease states. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION We searched MEDLINE and Embase to identify publications reporting on epidemiology, disease definitions, clinical outcomes, and treatment characteristics of omPC. Gray literature sources (eg, ClinicalTrials.gov) were searched for ongoing trials. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS We identified 105 publications. Disease definitions varied across publications and omPC subtypes on the number and location of lesions, type of imaging used, and type of oligometastatic disease. Most studies defined omPC as five or fewer metastatic lesions. Data on the epidemiology of omPC were limited. Mortality rates and overall survival tended to be worse among synchronous versus metachronous omPC cohorts. Progression-free survival was generally longer among synchronous than among metachronous omPC cohorts but was more similar at longer time points. A summary of ongoing clinical trials investigating a variety of local, metastasis-directed, and systemic therapies in men with omPC is also provided. CONCLUSIONS Definitions of oligometastatic disease depend on the imaging technique used. Epidemiologic data for omPC are scarce. Survival rates differ between synchronous and metachronous cohorts, and heterogeneous treatment patterns result in varied outcomes. Ongoing clinical trials using modern imaging techniques are awaited and needed. PATIENT SUMMARY Definitions of oligometastatic prostate cancer (omPC) vary depending on the imaging technique used. Different treatment patterns lead to different outcomes. Robust omPC epidemiologic data are lacking.
Collapse
|
2
|
Di Franco M, Mei R, Garcia C, Fanti S. Treatment response assessment in mCRPC: is PSMA-PET/CT going to take the lead? Ther Adv Med Oncol 2024; 16:17588359241258367. [PMID: 39386313 PMCID: PMC11462558 DOI: 10.1177/17588359241258367] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2023] [Accepted: 05/14/2024] [Indexed: 10/12/2024] Open
Abstract
The assessment of response to therapy in prostate cancer (PCa) patients is an ongoing, open issue. Prostate-specific antigen has limitations, especially in advanced metastatic PCa, which often displays intratumor variability in terms of response to therapy. Conventional imaging (i.e. computerized tomography and bone scan) is of limited use for its low sensitivity and specificity. Positron-emission tomography (PET) with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) demonstrated higher sensitivity and specificity, and novel PSMA-based criteria have been recently proposed for treatment response, with promising results in different scenarios, from chemotherapy to radioligand therapy. PSMA-based criteria have been found to outperform the current RECIST 1.1 and Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 frameworks in describing the behavior of PCa, precisely assessing tumor phenotypes through molecular-imaging-derived parameters. This review critically explores the current evidence about the role of PSMA PET/computed tomography in the assessment of treatment response.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Martina Di Franco
- Nuclear Medicine, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, Via Massarenti 9, Bologna 40138, Italy
| | - Riccardo Mei
- Nuclear Medicine Unit, University Hospital of Modena, Modena, Italy
| | - Camilo Garcia
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Gustave Roussy, Paris Saclay University, Villejuif, France
| | - Stefano Fanti
- Nuclear Medicine, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
- Nuclear Medicine, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Grün A, Cumaoglu S, Kluge A, Schlomm T, Böhmer D, Miller K, Heidenreich H, Zips D, Kalinauskaite G. Early and repetitive novel-tracer PET-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy for nodal oligorecurrent prostate cancer after definitive first-line therapy. Strahlenther Onkol 2024:10.1007/s00066-024-02304-9. [PMID: 39331064 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-024-02304-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/01/2024] [Accepted: 08/31/2024] [Indexed: 09/28/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron-emission tomography (PET) imaging can detect prostate cancer (PCa) nodal oligorecurrences (NOR) at very low prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. Prospective studies on oligorecurrent (OR) PCa have been hampered by either dated diagnostics or inhomogeneous cohorts and/or treatment approaches. We hypothesized that early and-if necessary and feasible-repetitive PSMA-PET-based metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) using stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) would improve freedom from palliative (systemic) therapy at low toxicity. METHODS This study is a retrospective analysis of patients treated for OR PCa after definitive first-line therapy using PSMA-PET/CT-based SBRT. Endpoints were biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), SBRT-free survival (SBRT-FS), androgen deprivation therapy (ADT)-free survival (ADT-FS), and toxicity. RESULTS A total of 67 patients and 248 metastases (211 nodal) were treated. Patients on concurrent ADT were excluded. Median PSA at inclusion was 2.175 ng/ml. bPFS, SBRT-FS, and ADT-FS for multiple-course SBRT were 9.5, 19.5, and 35.0 months, respectively; 32 patients had ≥ 1 course of SBRT. Median PSA nadir was 0.585 ng/ml. There was no ≥ grade 2 toxicity. CONCLUSION Modern-tracer PET/CT-based early and repetitive focal SBRT yields promising results with regard to bPFS, SBRT-FS, and ADT-FS with low toxicity. The ability of this approach to postpone initiation of palliative treatment with low toxicity should be re-evaluated prospectively.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arne Grün
- Department for Radiation Oncology, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Corporate member of Freie Universitaet Berlin, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
| | - Selin Cumaoglu
- Department for Radiation Oncology, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Corporate member of Freie Universitaet Berlin, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Anne Kluge
- MVZ Leipzig Strahlentherapie, Landsberger Straße 81, 04157, Leipzig, Germany
| | - Thorsten Schlomm
- Department for Urology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universitaet Berlin, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Dirk Böhmer
- Department for Radiation Oncology, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Corporate member of Freie Universitaet Berlin, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Kurt Miller
- Department for Urology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universitaet Berlin, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Holger Heidenreich
- Department for Urology, Bundeswehr Krankenhaus Berlin, Scharnhorststraße 13, 10115, Berlin, Germany
| | - Daniel Zips
- Department for Radiation Oncology, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Corporate member of Freie Universitaet Berlin, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| | - Goda Kalinauskaite
- Department for Radiation Oncology, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Corporate member of Freie Universitaet Berlin, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Sheikh GT, Trapp C, Schmidt-Hegemann NS, Buchner A, Stief CG, Unterrainer M, Kunz WG, Cyran CC, Grawe F, Delker A, Zacherl MJ, Holzgreve A, Unterrainer LM, Brendel M, Belka C, Li M, Rogowski P. PSMA-PET/CT response after metastasis-directed radiotherapy of bone oligometastases in prostate cancer. EJNMMI REPORTS 2024; 8:25. [PMID: 39155339 PMCID: PMC11330950 DOI: 10.1186/s41824-024-00212-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2024] [Accepted: 05/14/2024] [Indexed: 08/20/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Bone metastases are very common in advanced prostate cancer and can sensitively be detected utilizing PSMA-PET/CT. Therefore, our goal was to evaluate the suitability of PSMA-PET/CT-guided metastasis-directed external beam radiotherapy (MDT) as treatment option for patients with biochemical recurrence and oligometastatic bone lesions. MATERIALS & METHODS We retrospectively examined 32 prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence and PSMA-positive oligometastatic disease limited to the bone (n = 1-3). A total of 49 bone lesions were treated with MDT. All patients received a post-radiotherapy PSMA-PET/CT-Scan. Changes in SUVmax, PSMA-positive tumor volume per lesion and PSA, as well as the correlation between the PET/CT-interval and SUVmax response were calculated. RESULTS MDT lead to a SUVmax decrease in 46/49 (94%) of the lesions. The median relative decline of SUVmax was 60.4%, respectively. Based on PSMA-positive lesion volume with a SUV cut-off of 4, 46/49 (94%) of lesions showed complete response, two (4%) partial response and one lesion (2%) was stable on PSMA-PET/CT after MDT. Most of the treated patients (56.3%) showed an initial PSA decline at three months and a PSA nadir of median 0.14 ng/ml after a median time of 3.6 months after MDT. The median relative PSA change at three months after MDT was 3.9%. CONCLUSION MDT is a very effective treatment modality for prostate cancer bone oligometastases and lesion response to MDT can be assessed using the (semi-)quantitative parameters SUVmax and PSMA-positive lesion volume with established SUV cut-offs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gabriel T Sheikh
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
| | - Christian Trapp
- Department of Radiation Oncology, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | | | - Alexander Buchner
- Department of Urology, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Christian G Stief
- Department of Urology, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Marcus Unterrainer
- Department of Radiology, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Wolfgang G Kunz
- Department of Radiology, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Clemens C Cyran
- Department of Radiology, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Freba Grawe
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Hector Cancer Institute at the University Medical Center Mannheim, Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University Medical Center Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Astrid Delker
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany
| | - Mathias J Zacherl
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany
| | - Adrien Holzgreve
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany
| | - Lena M Unterrainer
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany
- Ahmanson Translational Theranostics Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, USA
| | - Matthias Brendel
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany
| | - Claus Belka
- Department of Radiation Oncology, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Minglun Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Paul Rogowski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Sutera P, Deek MP, Deek RA, Guler OC, Hurmuz P, Reyhan M, Rowe S, Radwan N, Dipasquale S, Hrinivich WT, Lowe K, Ren L, Saraiya B, Ennis R, Hathout L, Mayer T, Deweese TL, Song DY, Kiess A, Oymak E, Pienta K, Feng F, Pomper M, Ozyigit G, Tran PT, Onal C, Phillips RM. Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen PET Response Associates with Metastasis-Free Survival After Stereotactic Ablative Radiation in Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer. Adv Radiat Oncol 2024; 9:101507. [PMID: 38799104 PMCID: PMC11127093 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2024.101507] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/20/2023] [Accepted: 03/28/2024] [Indexed: 05/29/2024] Open
Abstract
Purpose Emerging data suggest that metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) improves outcomes in patients with oligometastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (omCSPC). Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) can detect occult metastatic disease, and PSMA response has been proposed as a biomarker for treatment response. Herein, we identify and validate a PSMA-PET biomarker for metastasis-free survival (MFS) following MDT in omCSPC. Methods and Materials We performed an international multi-institutional retrospective study of patients with omCSPC, defined as ≤3 lesions, treated with metastasis-directed stereotactic ablative radiation who underwent PSMA-PET/computed tomography (CT) before and after (median, 6.2 months; range, 2.4-10.9 months) treatment. Pre- and post-MDT PSMA-PET/CT maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) was measured for all lesions, and PSMA response was defined as the percent change in SUVmax of the least responsive lesion. PSMA response was both evaluated as a continuous variable and dichotomized into PSMA responders, with a complete/partial response (at least a 30% reduction in SUVmax), and PSMA nonresponders, with stable/progressive disease (less than a 30% reduction in SUVmax). PSMA response was correlated with conventional imaging-defined metastasis-free survival (MFS) via Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis. Results A total of 131 patients with 261 treated metastases were included in the analysis, with a median follow-up of 29 months (IQR, 18.5-41.3 months). After stereotactic ablative radiation, 70.2% of patients were classified as PSMA responders. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that PSMA response as a continuous variable was associated with a significantly worse MFS (hazard ratio = 1.003; 95% CI, 1.001-1.006; P = .016). Patients classified as PSMA responders were found to have a significantly improved median MFS of 39.9 versus 12 months (P = .001) compared with PSMA nonresponders. Our study is limited as it is a retrospective review of a heterogenous population. Conclusions After stereotactic ablative radiation, PSMA-PET response appears to be a radiographic biomarker that correlates with MFS in omCSPC. This approach holds promise for guiding clinical management of omCSPC and should be validated in a prospective setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Philip Sutera
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Matthew P. Deek
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey
| | - Rebecca A. Deek
- Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Ozan Cem Guler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Baskent University, Adana Dr Turgut Noyan Research and Treatment Center, Adana, Turkey
| | - Pervin Hurmuz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Mehmet Reyhan
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Baskent University, Adana Dr Turgut Noyan Research and Treatment Center, Adana, Turkey
| | - Steven Rowe
- The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Noura Radwan
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Shirl Dipasquale
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - William T. Hrinivich
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Kathryn Lowe
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Lei Ren
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Biren Saraiya
- Division of Medical Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey
| | - Ronald Ennis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey
| | - Lara Hathout
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey
| | - Tina Mayer
- Division of Medical Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey
| | - Theodore L. Deweese
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
- Department of Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
- James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Daniel Y. Song
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
- Department of Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
- James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Ana Kiess
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Ezgi Oymak
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Iskenderun Gelisim Hospital, Hatay, Turkey
| | - Kenneth Pienta
- Department of Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
- James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Felix Feng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Martin Pomper
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
- The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
- Department of Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
- James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Gokhan Ozyigit
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Phuoc T. Tran
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland
- Department of Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
- James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Cem Onal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Baskent University, Adana Dr Turgut Noyan Research and Treatment Center, Adana, Turkey
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Baskent University, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Ryan M. Phillips
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Onal C, Elmali A, Cem Guler O. Re: Pawel Rajwa, Daniele Robesti, Michael Chaloupka, et al. Outcomes of Cytoreductive Radical Prostatectomy for Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer on Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography: Results of a Multicenter European Study. Eur Urol Oncol. In press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2023.09.006. Eur Urol Oncol 2024; 7:644-645. [PMID: 38365504 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.12.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/16/2023] [Accepted: 12/17/2023] [Indexed: 02/18/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- Cem Onal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Adana Dr. Turgut Noyan Research and Treatment Center, Baskent University, Adana, Turkey; Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Baskent University, Ankara, Turkey.
| | - Aysenur Elmali
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Baskent University, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Ozan Cem Guler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Adana Dr. Turgut Noyan Research and Treatment Center, Baskent University, Adana, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Moran S, Cheng HH, Weg E, Kim EH, Chen DL, Iravani A, Ippolito JE. Prostate-specific membrane antigen-positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) of prostate cancer: current and emerging applications. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2024; 49:1288-1305. [PMID: 38386156 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-024-04188-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2023] [Revised: 01/03/2024] [Accepted: 01/07/2024] [Indexed: 02/23/2024]
Abstract
Prostate-specific membrane antigen-positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) is transforming the management of patients with prostate cancer. In appropriately selected patients, PSMA-PET offers superior sensitivity and specificity compared to conventional imaging (e.g., computed tomography and bone scintigraphy) as well as choline and fluciclovine PET, with the added benefit of consolidating bone and soft tissue evaluation into a single study. Despite being a newly available imaging tool, PSMA-PET has established indications, interpretation guidelines, and reporting criteria, which will be reviewed. The prostate cancer care team, from imaging specialists to those delivering treatment, should have knowledge of physiologic PSMA radiotracer uptake, patterns of disease spread, and the strengths and limitations of PSMA-PET. In this review, current and emerging applications of PSMA-PET, including appropriateness use criteria as well as image interpretation and pitfalls, will be provided with an emphasis on clinical implications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shamus Moran
- Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Heather H Cheng
- Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
- Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Emily Weg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Eric H Kim
- Division of Urologic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Delphine L Chen
- Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
- Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Amir Iravani
- Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
- Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Joseph E Ippolito
- Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, 4559 Scott Ave., Mail Stop Code: 8131, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
- Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
San Francisco IF, Rojas PA, Bravo JC, Díaz J, Ebel L, Urrutia S, Prieto B, Cerda-Infante J. Can We Predict Prostate Cancer Metastasis Based on Biomarkers? Where Are We Now? Int J Mol Sci 2023; 24:12508. [PMID: 37569883 PMCID: PMC10420177 DOI: 10.3390/ijms241512508] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2023] [Revised: 07/26/2023] [Accepted: 07/27/2023] [Indexed: 08/13/2023] Open
Abstract
The incidence of prostate cancer (PC) has risen annually. PC mortality is explained by the metastatic disease (mPC). There is an intermediate scenario in which patients have non-mPC but have initiated a metastatic cascade through epithelial-mesenchymal transition. There is indeed a need for more and better tools to predict which patients will progress in the future to non-localized clinical disease or already have micrometastatic disease and, therefore, will clinically progress after primary treatment. Biomarkers for the prediction of mPC are still under development; there are few studies and not much evidence of their usefulness. This review is focused on tissue-based genomic biomarkers (TBGB) for the prediction of metastatic disease. We develop four main research questions that we attempt to answer according to the current evidence. Why is it important to predict metastatic disease? Which tests are available to predict metastatic disease? What impact should there be on clinical guidelines and clinical practice in predicting metastatic disease? What are the current prostate cancer treatments? The importance of predicting metastasis is fundamental given that, once metastasis is diagnosed, quality of life (QoL) and survival drop dramatically. There is still a need and space for more cost-effective TBGB tests that predict mPC disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ignacio F. San Francisco
- Environ Innovation Laboratory, Avenida Providencia 1208 Oficina 207, Providencia, Santiago 7500000, Chile;
| | - Pablo A. Rojas
- Servicio de Urología, Complejo Asistencial Dr. Sotero del Río, Santiago 8150215, Chile;
| | - Juan C. Bravo
- Servicio de Urología, Hospital Regional Libertador Bernardo O’Higgins, Rancagua 2820000, Chile;
| | - Jorge Díaz
- Servicio de Urología, Instituto Oncológico Fundación Arturo López Pérez, Santiago 7500921, Chile;
| | - Luis Ebel
- Servicio de Urología, Hospital Base de Valdivia, Universidad Austral, Valdivia 5090000, Chile;
| | - Sebastián Urrutia
- Servicio de Urología, Hospital Dr. Hernán Henríquez Aravena, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco 4780000, Chile;
| | - Benjamín Prieto
- Environ Innovation Laboratory, Avenida Providencia 1208 Oficina 207, Providencia, Santiago 7500000, Chile;
| | - Javier Cerda-Infante
- Environ Innovation Laboratory, Avenida Providencia 1208 Oficina 207, Providencia, Santiago 7500000, Chile;
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Yap SZL, Armstrong S, Aherne N, Shakespeare TP. PSMA-PET-guided dose-escalated volumetric arc therapy for newly diagnosed lymph node-positive prostate cancer: 5 Year outcomes following the FROGG and EviQ node-positive guidelines. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2023. [PMID: 37186452 DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.13534] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/04/2022] [Accepted: 04/01/2023] [Indexed: 05/17/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) Faculty of Radiation Oncology Genitourinary Group (FROGG) guidelines and online EviQ protocols incorporate prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET)-guided dose-escalated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (DE-IMRT) for newly diagnosed lymph node (LN) positive prostate cancer. We evaluated late toxicity and efficacy outcomes following the FROGG and EviQ approach. METHODS Patients with LN-positive-only metastases on PSMA-PET imaging were offered curative therapy with 3 months neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) followed by DE-IMRT and 3 years adjuvant ADT. IMRT was delivered via volumetric arc therapy (VMAT). We aimed to deliver 81 Gy in 45 fractions (Fx) to the prostate and PET-positive LNs, and 60 Gy in 45 Fx to elective pelvic nodes, contoured using the PIVOTAL guidelines. RESULTS Forty-five patients were included. The median number of PET-positive nodes boosted was 2 (range 1-6) and median boost volume 1.16 cc (range 0.15-4.14). Seventeen (38%) patients had PET-positive nodes outside of PIVOTAL contouring guidelines. With 60 months median follow-up, disease-free, metastasis-free, prostate cancer-specific and overall survival were 88.1%, 95.3%, 100% and 91.5%. There were no in-field nodal failures. Late grade 1, 2 and 3 gastrointestinal toxicities occurred in 4%, 2% and 0% of patients, and genitourinary toxicity in 18%, 18% and 4%. Lower limb grade 2 lymphoedema occurred in three patients (7%). CONCLUSION Outcomes following FROGG guidelines and EviQ are promising, with high long-term disease control and low toxicity. Contouring guidelines require modification due to the high rate of PET-positive nodes demonstrated beyond recommended coverage.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shaun Zheng Liang Yap
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mid-North Coast Cancer Institute, Coffs Harbour Health Campus, Coffs Harbour, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Shreya Armstrong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, North Coast Cancer Institute, Lismore Base Hospital, Lismore, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Noel Aherne
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mid-North Coast Cancer Institute, Coffs Harbour Health Campus, Coffs Harbour, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Thomas Philip Shakespeare
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mid-North Coast Cancer Institute, Coffs Harbour Health Campus, Coffs Harbour, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Fendler WP, Eiber M, Beheshti M, Bomanji J, Calais J, Ceci F, Cho SY, Fanti S, Giesel FL, Goffin K, Haberkorn U, Jacene H, Koo PJ, Kopka K, Krause BJ, Lindenberg L, Marcus C, Mottaghy FM, Oprea-Lager DE, Osborne JR, Piert M, Rowe SP, Schöder H, Wan S, Wester HJ, Hope TA, Herrmann K. PSMA PET/CT: joint EANM procedure guideline/SNMMI procedure standard for prostate cancer imaging 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2023; 50:1466-1486. [PMID: 36604326 PMCID: PMC10027805 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-022-06089-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 108] [Impact Index Per Article: 54.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/30/2022] [Accepted: 12/18/2022] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
Here we aim to provide updated guidance and standards for the indication, acquisition, and interpretation of PSMA PET/CT for prostate cancer imaging. Procedures and characteristics are reported for a variety of available PSMA small radioligands. Different scenarios for the clinical use of PSMA-ligand PET/CT are discussed. This document provides clinicians and technicians with the best available evidence, to support the implementation of PSMA PET/CT imaging in research and routine practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wolfgang P Fendler
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK)-University Hospital Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, 45147, Essen, Germany
- PET Committee of the German Society of Nuclear Medicine, Marburg, Germany
| | - Matthias Eiber
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Mohsen Beheshti
- Division of Molecular Imaging & Theranostics, Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Salzburg, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria
| | - Jamshed Bomanji
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine, UCLH NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Jeremie Calais
- Ahmanson Translational Theranostics Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Francesco Ceci
- Division of Nuclear Medicine and Theranostics, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Steve Y Cho
- Department of Radiology, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA
| | | | - Frederik L Giesel
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine-University and Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Karolien Goffin
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University Hospital Leuven, KU Leuven, Louvain, Belgium
| | - Uwe Haberkorn
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Heather Jacene
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, USA
| | | | - Klaus Kopka
- Institute of Radiopharmaceutical Cancer Research, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany
- School of Science, Faculty of Chemistry and Food Chemistry, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Bernd J Krause
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany
| | - Liza Lindenberg
- Molecular Imaging Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Charles Marcus
- Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Felix M Mottaghy
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center (MUMC+), Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Daniela E Oprea-Lager
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University Medical Center, Cancer Center Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Joseph R Osborne
- Department of Radiology, Division of Molecular Imaging and Therapeutics, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | - Morand Piert
- Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Steven P Rowe
- Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Heiko Schöder
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Simon Wan
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine, UCLH NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Hans-Jürgen Wester
- Pharmaceutical Radiochemistry, Technische Universität München, Walther-Meißner-Str. 3, 85748, Garching, Germany
| | - Thomas A Hope
- Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Ken Herrmann
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK)-University Hospital Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, 45147, Essen, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Harsini S, Wilson D, Saprunoff H, Allan H, Gleave M, Goldenberg L, Chi KN, Kim-Sing C, Tyldesley S, Bénard F. Outcome of patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after PSMA PET/CT-directed radiotherapy or surgery without systemic therapy. Cancer Imaging 2023; 23:27. [PMID: 36932416 PMCID: PMC10024380 DOI: 10.1186/s40644-023-00543-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2022] [Accepted: 03/05/2023] [Indexed: 03/19/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Radiotherapy (RT) and surgery are potential treatment options in patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) following primary prostate cancer treatment. This study examines the value of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT)-informed surgery and RT in patients with BCR treated without systemic therapy. METHODS This is a post-hoc subgroup analysis of a prospective clinical trial. Inclusion criteria were: histologically proven prostate cancer at initial curative-intent treatment, BCR after primary treatment with curative intent, having five or fewer lesions identified on [18F]DCFPyL PET/CT, and treatment with either PET/CT-directed RT or surgery without systemic therapy. The biochemical progression-free survival after PSMA ligand PET/CT-directed RT and surgery was determined. Uni- and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed for the association of patients' characteristics, tumor-specific variables, and PSMA PET/CT imaging results with biochemical progression at the last follow-up. RESULTS Fifty-eight patients (30 in surgery and 28 in radiotherapy groups) met the inclusion criteria. A total of 87 PSMA-positive lesions were detected: 16 local recurrences (18.4%), 54 regional lymph nodes (62.1%), 6 distant lymph nodes (6,8%), and 11 osseous lesions (12.7%). A total of 85.7% (24 of 28) and 70.0% (21 of 30) of patients showed a ≥ 50% decrease in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels after RT and surgery, respectively. At a median follow-up time of 21 months (range, 6-32 months), the median biochemical progression-free survival was 19 months (range, 4 to 23 months) in the radiotherapy group, as compared with 16.5 months (range, 4 to 28 months) in the surgery group. On multivariate Cox regression analysis, the number of PSMA positive lesions (2-5 lesions compared to one lesion), and the anatomic location of the detected lesions (distant metastasis vs. local relapse and pelvic nodal relapse) significantly correlated with biochemical progression at the last follow-up, whereas other clinical, tumor-specific, and imaging parameters did not. CONCLUSIONS This study suggests that RT or surgery based on [18F]DCFPyL PET/CT are associated with high PSA response rates. The number and site of lesions detected on the PSMA PET/CT were predictive of biochemical progression on follow-up. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of targeting these sites on patient relevant outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION Registered September 14, 2016; NCT02899312; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02899312.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sara Harsini
- BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Don Wilson
- BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada
- Universtity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | | | - Hayley Allan
- BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Martin Gleave
- Universtity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
- Vancouver Prostate Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Larry Goldenberg
- Universtity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
- Vancouver Prostate Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Kim N Chi
- BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada
- Universtity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Charmaine Kim-Sing
- BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada
- Universtity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Scott Tyldesley
- BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada
- Universtity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - François Bénard
- BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
- Universtity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Management of Patients with Recurrent and Metachronous Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer in the Era of PSMA PET. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14246194. [PMID: 36551678 PMCID: PMC9777467 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14246194] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2022] [Revised: 12/06/2022] [Accepted: 12/06/2022] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) scans have higher sensitivity and specificity for detecting lymph nodes or metastatic disease relative to conventional imaging in prostate cancer staging. Since its FDA approval and incorporation into treatment guidelines, the use of PSMA PET has increased in patients undergoing initial staging, those with recurrence after initial definitive treatment, and patients with metastatic disease. Although the early detection of metastatic lesions is changing disease management, it is unclear whether this impact on management translates into clinical benefit. This review will summarize evidence pertaining to the change in patient management due to PSMA PET use and will discuss the implications of PSMA PET on treatment decisions in prostate cancer, particularly in the settings of biochemical recurrence and metachronous oligometastatic disease.
Collapse
|
13
|
Dose-escalated radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost for bone metastases in selected patients with assumed favourable prognosis. Radiol Oncol 2022; 56:515-524. [PMID: 36503710 PMCID: PMC9784373 DOI: 10.2478/raon-2022-0053] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2022] [Accepted: 10/11/2022] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) concepts for dose escalation are increasingly used for bone metastases in patients with oligometastatic or oligoprogressive disease. For metastases that are not suitable for SBRT-regimens, a treatment with 30/40 Gy with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) in 10 fractions represents a possible regimen. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of this concept and the acute and subacute toxicities. PATIENTS AND METHODS Clinical records for dose-escalated radiotherapy of all consecutive patients treated with this regimen were evaluated retrospectively (24 patients with 28 target volumes for oncologic outcomes and 25 patients with 29 target volumes for treatment feasibility and dose parameters analysis). Analysis of radiotherapy plans included size of target volumes and dosimetric parameter for target volumes and organs at risk (OAR). Acute and subacute toxicities were evaluated according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) V4.0. RESULTS The most common localization was the spine (71.4%). The most common histology was prostate cancer (45.8%). Oligometastatic or oligoprogressive disease was the indication for dose-escalated radiotherapy in 19/24 patients (79.2%). Treatment was feasible with all patients completing radiotherapy. Acute toxicity grade 1 was documented in 36.0% of the patients. During follow up, one patient underwent surgery due to bone instability. The 1-year local control and patient-related progression-free survival (PFS) were 90.0 ± 6.7% and 33.3 ± 11.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Dose-escalated hypofractionated radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost for bone metastases resulted in good local control with limited acute toxicities. Only one patient required surgical intervention. The regimen represents an alternative to SBRT in selected patients.
Collapse
|
14
|
Jadvar H, Abreu AL, Ballas LK, Quinn DI. Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer: Current Status and Future Challenges. J Nucl Med 2022; 63:1628-1635. [PMID: 36319116 PMCID: PMC9635685 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.121.263124] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/15/2022] [Revised: 07/15/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
In accordance with the spectrum theory of metastatic disease, an oligometastatic clinical state has been proposed as an intermediary step along the natural history of cancer with few (typically 1-3) metastatic lesions identifiable on imaging that may be amenable to metastasis-directed therapy. Effective therapy of oligometastatic disease is anticipated to impact cancer evolution by delaying progression and improving patient outcome at a minimal or acceptable cost of toxicity. There has been increasing recognition of oligometastatic disease in prostate cancer with the advent of new-generation imaging agents, most notably the recently approved PET radiotracers based on targeting prostate-specific membrane antigen. Early clinical trials with metastasis-directed therapy of oligometastases have provided evidence for delaying the employment of systematic therapy and improving outcome in selected patients. Despite these encouraging results, much needs to be investigated and learned about the underlying biology of the oligometastatic state along the evolutionary clinical course of prostate cancer, the identification of relevant imaging and nonimaging predictive and prognostic biomarkers, and the development of treatment strategies to optimize short-term and long-term patient outcome. We provide a review of the current status and the lingering challenges of this rapidly evolving clinical space in prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hossein Jadvar
- Department of Radiology, Kenneth J. Norris, Jr., Comprehensive Cancer Center, USC Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Andre Luis Abreu
- Institute of Urology, Kenneth J. Norris, Jr., Comprehensive Cancer Center, USC Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Leslie K. Ballas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kenneth J. Norris, Jr., Comprehensive Cancer Center, USC Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; and
| | - David I. Quinn
- Division of Cancer Medicine, Department of Medicine, Kenneth J. Norris, Jr., Comprehensive Cancer Center, USC Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Sánchez-Iglesias ÁL, Morillo-Macías V, Santafé-Jiménez A, Ferrer-Albiach C. Bone-only oligometastatic prostate cancer: can SABR improve outcomes? A single-center experience. Radiat Oncol J 2022; 40:192-199. [PMID: 36200308 PMCID: PMC9535412 DOI: 10.3857/roj.2022.00101] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2022] [Accepted: 08/25/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Ablative treatment of oligometastases has shown survival benefit with certain tumors, although these effects still are to be demonstrated in prostate cancer. Materials and Methods We analysed the toxicity and clinical control results obtained in patients with bone-only oligometastatic prostate cancer treated with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). Retrospective study on patients with metachronous oligoprogression and synchronous de novo bone-only oligometastatic prostate cancer treated with SABR and androgen deprivation therapy. Results Treatment schedules varied according to location and organs at risk, with biologically equivalent dose (BED) ≥100 Gy. Fifty-five bone lesions (31 patients) were treated and evaluated for toxicity, local control, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). After a 41-month follow-up, there was minimal acute or chronic toxicity and no G3 toxicity. The local control at 3 and 5 years was 100% and 87.1%, respectively. Median PFS and OS were 43 and 98 months, respectively. The best result in PFS was obtained with BED ≥230 Gy, delaying time to the next systemic therapy by 28.5 months. Conclusion The use of SABR in bone oligometastases of prostate cancer is safe with minimal toxicity and excellent results in local control and PFS, delaying the start of the next systemic therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ángel L. Sánchez-Iglesias
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Consorcio Hospitalario Provincial de Castellón, Spain
- Correspondence: Ángel L. Sánchez-Iglesias Department of Radiation Oncology, Consorcio Hospitalario Provincial de Castellón, Avda. Dr. Clará 19, 12002 Castellón, Spain. Tel: +34-964-376000 Fax: +34-964-354401 E-mail:
| | | | - Ana Santafé-Jiménez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Consorcio Hospitalario Provincial de Castellón, Spain
| | - Carlos Ferrer-Albiach
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Consorcio Hospitalario Provincial de Castellón, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Pozdnyakov A, Kulanthaivelu R, Bauman G, Ortega C, Veit-Haibach P, Metser U. The impact of PSMA PET on the treatment and outcomes of men with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2022:10.1038/s41391-022-00544-3. [PMID: 35440642 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-022-00544-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/27/2021] [Revised: 04/01/2022] [Accepted: 04/05/2022] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET is highly sensitive in identifying disease recurrence in men with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer (BCR) after primary therapy and is rapidly being adopted in clinical practice. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the documented impact of PSMA-PET on patient management and outcomes, including prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, and intermediate and long-term outcome measures. MATERIALS AND METHODS MBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane and OVID databases were searched for studies reporting on the impact of PSMA-PET on the management and outcomes of patients with BCR after definitive primary therapy. Outcome measures assessed included biochemical response to therapy after PET and BCR-free survival (BRFS). The proportions of patients in whom management changed, and the proportion of patients in whom each outcome measure was obtained were tabulated and pooled into meta-analysis using DerSimonian-Laird method. RESULTS A total of 34 studies with 3680 men reported change in management after PSMA-PET and 27 studies with 2639 men reported on at least one outcome measure and had follow-up data. PSMA-PET was positive in 2508/3680 (68.2%). The pooled proportion of change in management after PSMA-PET was 56.4% (95% CI, 48.0-63.9%). A decrease in serum PSA was documented in 72.4% of men (95% CI, 63.4-81.5%), and complete biochemical response in 23.3% (95% CI, 14.6-32.0%) at a median follow-up of 8.1 and 11 months, respectively. The pooled BRFS rate was 60.2% (95% CI, 49.1-71.4%) at a median follow-up of 20 months. CONCLUSION In conclusion, PSMA PET is positive in more than 2/3 of men with BCR and impacts patient management in more than half of the men. BRFS after PET-directed management is 60% at a median of 20 months after salvage therapy, and complete biochemical response may be achieved in up to a quarter of men.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alex Pozdnyakov
- Department of Radiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Roshini Kulanthaivelu
- Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Mount Sinai Hospital & Women's College Hospital; University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Glenn Bauman
- Department of Oncology, Western University, London, ON, Canada
| | - Claudia Ortega
- Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Mount Sinai Hospital & Women's College Hospital; University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Patrick Veit-Haibach
- Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Mount Sinai Hospital & Women's College Hospital; University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Ur Metser
- Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Mount Sinai Hospital & Women's College Hospital; University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Rogowski P, Trapp C, von Bestenbostel R, Konnerth D, Marschner S, Schmidt Hegemann NS, Belka C, Li M. Radiotherapy in oligometastatic prostate cancer-a pattern of care survey among members of the German Society for Radiation Oncology (DEGRO). Strahlenther Onkol 2022; 198:727-734. [PMID: 35364690 PMCID: PMC9300519 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-022-01925-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/14/2021] [Accepted: 03/02/2022] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
Purpose Due to improved imaging, oligometastatic prostate cancer (OMPC) is diagnosed more frequently. Growing evidence shows that patients with a limited number of metastases benefit from primary-directed radiotherapy (PDT) as well as from metastasis-directed radiotherapy (MDT). This survey investigates the current treatment practice for OMPC among German-speaking radiation oncologists. Methods Members of the German Society for Radiation Oncology (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Radioonkologie [DEGRO]) were surveyed regarding their current treatment practice via an anonymous online questionnaire sent by email. The survey included six general items and 14 specific items regarding treatment characteristics. Questionnaires with at least 50% of questions completed were considered for further analysis. Results A total of 204 responses were received (15% response rate), 167 were considered for further analysis. Most respondents stated to be specialized in treating prostate cancer patients and to treat 10–30 patients with OMPC per annum; 97% considered PSMA-PET/CT necessary to define oligometastatic disease. Opinions differed regarding the use of systemic therapies: 63% of the respondents aimed to defer systemic therapy using radiotherapy in OMPC, whereas 37% considered systemic therapy necessary. In the setting of synchronous OMPC, 97% recommended PDT with or without a combination of MDT and/or systemic therapy. For metachronous nodal or bone oligometastatic recurrence, 98 and 99%, respectively, would opt for MDT. The majority would combine MDT with systemic therapy in patients with metachronous oligorecurrence. Respondents recommended normofractionation, hypofractionation, and SBRT for lymph node metastases in 49, 27, and 24%, respectively. No consensus existed regarding the field size for MDT of lymph node metastases. Most respondents preferred > 5 fractions for treatment of bone metastases. Conclusion Local radiotherapy for PDT and MDT is routinely used among respondents of this survey, representing 12% of all German-speaking radiation oncologists. The timing of systemic therapy, fractionation schedules, and field sizes are handled differently and remain an area of active investigation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Rogowski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany
| | - Christian Trapp
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany
| | - Rieke von Bestenbostel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany
| | - Dinah Konnerth
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany
| | - Sebastian Marschner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany
| | | | - Claus Belka
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Munich, Germany
| | - Minglun Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Alongi P, Laudicella R, Lanzafame H, Farolfi A, Mapelli P, Picchio M, Burger IA, Iagaru A, Minutoli F, Evangelista L. PSMA and Choline PET for the Assessment of Response to Therapy and Survival Outcomes in Prostate Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review from the Literature. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14071770. [PMID: 35406542 PMCID: PMC8997431 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14071770] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/18/2022] [Revised: 03/21/2022] [Accepted: 03/22/2022] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Radiolabeled choline and PSMA PET have been largely tested in the initial staging of prostate cancer and for biochemical recurrence. Moreover, diverse data are now available about their role in the evaluation of response to local and systematic therapies, and their predictive impact on the prognosis, before and after therapy. Therefore, in the present systematic review, we aimed to describe the available data, to summarize the current evidence in these settings of disease. Abstract The aims of this systematic review were to (1) assess the utility of PSMA-PET and choline-PET in the assessment of response to systemic and local therapy, and to (2) determine the value of both tracers for the prediction of response to therapy and survival outcomes in prostate cancer. We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed/Scopus/Google Scholar/Cochrane/EMBASE databases (between January 2010 and October 2021) accordingly. The quality of the included studies was evaluated following the “Quality Assessment of Prognostic Accuracy Studies” tool (QUAPAS-2). We selected 40 articles: 23 articles discussed the use of PET imaging with [68Ga]PSMA-11 (16 articles/1123 patients) or [11C]/[18F]Choline (7 articles/356 patients) for the prediction of response to radiotherapy (RT) and survival outcomes. Seven articles (three with [68Ga]PSMA-11, three with [11C]Choline, one with [18F]Choline) assessed the role of PET imaging in the evaluation of response to docetaxel (as neoadjuvant therapy in one study, as first-line therapy in five studies, and as a palliative regimen in one study). Seven papers with radiolabeled [18F]Choline PET/CT (n = 121 patients) and three with [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET (n = 87 patients) were selected before and after enzalutamide/abiraterone acetate. Finally, [18F]Choline and [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET/CT as gatekeepers for the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer with Radium-223 were assessed in three papers. In conclusion, in patients undergoing RT, radiolabeled choline and [68Ga]PSMA-11 have an important prognostic role. In the case of systemic therapies, the role of such new-generation imaging techniques is still controversial without sufficient data, thus requiring additional in this scenario.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pierpaolo Alongi
- Nuclear Medicine Unit, A.R.N.A.S. Ospedale Civico Di Cristina Benfratelli, 90127 Palermo, Italy;
| | - Riccardo Laudicella
- Nuclear Medicine Unit, Fondazione Istituto G.Giglio, 90015 Cefalù, Italy;
- Nuclear Medicine Unit, Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morpho-Functional Imaging, University of Messina, 98122 Messina, Italy;
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zurich, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland;
| | - Helena Lanzafame
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany;
| | - Andrea Farolfi
- Division of Nuclear Medicine, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, University of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy;
| | - Paola Mapelli
- Nuclear Medicine Department, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132 Milan, Italy; (P.M.); (M.P.)
| | - Maria Picchio
- Nuclear Medicine Department, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132 Milan, Italy; (P.M.); (M.P.)
| | - Irene A. Burger
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zurich, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland;
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Kantonsspital Baden, 5404 Baden, Switzerland
| | - Andrei Iagaru
- Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94035, USA;
| | - Fabio Minutoli
- Nuclear Medicine Unit, Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morpho-Functional Imaging, University of Messina, 98122 Messina, Italy;
| | - Laura Evangelista
- Nuclear Medicine Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Padua, 35128 Padova, Italy
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +39-0498211310
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Werensteijn-Honingh AM, Wevers AFJ, Peters M, Kroon PS, Intven M, Eppinga WSC, Jürgenliemk-Schulz IM. Progression-free survival in patients with 68Ga-PSMA-PET-directed SBRT for lymph node oligometastases. Acta Oncol 2021; 60:1342-1351. [PMID: 34323648 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2021.1955970] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prostate cancer oligometastatic disease can be treated using stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in order to postpone start of systemic treatments such as androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT imaging allows for diagnosis of oligometastases at lower PSA values. We analysed a cohort of patients with prostate cancer lymph node oligometastases detected on PSMA-PET/CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS Ninety patients with metachronous oligometastatic prostate cancer received SBRT for 1-3 lymph node metastases diagnosed on 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT. The primary end point was progression free survival (PFS), with disease progression defined as occurrence of either target lesion progression, new metastatic lesion or biochemical progression. Secondary outcomes were biochemical PFS (BPFS), ADT-free survival (ADT-FS), toxicity and quality of life (QoL). Baseline patient characteristics were tested for association with PFS and a preliminary risk score was created. RESULTS Median follow-up was 21 months (interquartile range 10-31 months). Median PFS and BPFS were 16 and 21 months, respectively. Median ADT-FS was not reached (73% (95%-CI 62-86%) at 24 months). In multivariable analysis, younger age, higher PSA prior to SBRT and extrapelvic location were associated with shorter PFS. Grade 1 fatigue was the most predominant acute toxicity (34%). Highest grade toxicity was grade 2 for acute and late events. QoL analysis showed mild, transient increase in fatigue at 1-4 weeks after SBRT. CONCLUSION A median PFS of 16 months was attained after SBRT for patients with PSMA-PET positive oligometastatic lymph nodes from prostate cancer. Higher pre-SBRT PSA, younger age and extrapelvic location were found to be predictors of shorter PFS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Anne F. J. Wevers
- Department of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Max Peters
- Department of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Petra S. Kroon
- Department of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Martijn Intven
- Department of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Wietse S. C. Eppinga
- Department of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
20
|
Franceschini D, Teriaca MA, Dominici L, Franzese C, Scorsetti M. Knowing When to Use Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy in Oligometastatic Cancer. Cancer Manag Res 2021; 13:7009-7031. [PMID: 34522143 PMCID: PMC8434826 DOI: 10.2147/cmar.s294116] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/14/2021] [Accepted: 08/28/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Oligometastatic patients are a heterogeneous and yet not well-defined population. The actual definition identifies as oligometastatic, patients with 1-5 metastases in 1-3 different organs. However, only a proportion of these patients are "true" oligometastatic and therefore derive some kinds of benefit from local ablative approaches like stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR). Since SABR is an easily accessible, effective and well-tolerated treatment, it is widely employed in the oligometastatic scenarios, without a particular focus on selection criteria. However, it should be crucial to identify predictive and prognostic features that could be clinically implemented. Therefore, we conducted this narrative review of the available literature to summarize all clinical, radiomic, genetic and epigenetic features found to be predictive of overall survival, progression-free survival or local control of oligometastatic patients treated with SABR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Davide Franceschini
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - Maria Ausilia Teriaca
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - Luca Dominici
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - Ciro Franzese
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.,Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy
| | - Marta Scorsetti
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.,Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Rossetti S, Di Napoli M, Pisano C, C Cecere S, Tambaro R, Ventriglia J, Passarelli A, Iovane G, Feroce F, Lastoria S, Di Gennaro F, Muto P, Borzillo V, Di Franco R, Perdonà S, Quarto G, Pignata S. Oligometastatic prostate cancer treatment. Future Oncol 2021; 17:3893-3899. [PMID: 34296622 DOI: 10.2217/fon-2021-0126] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Oligometastatic prostate cancer is an intermediate state between localized disease and widespread metastasis. Its biological and clinical peculiarities are still to be elucidated. New imaging techniques contribute to the detection of patients with oligometastatic disease. PET/CT scanning with prostate-specific membrane antigen can improve the selection of men with true early, low-volume oligometastatic disease, who are candidates for metastasis-directed therapy. Clinical studies demonstrated that androgen deprivation therapy can be delayed in oligometastatic patients with a low tumor burden, although no survival benefit has been demonstrated at present. This article presents available evidence on the treatment strategies for oligometastatic prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sabrina Rossetti
- Department of Urology & Gynecology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G Pascale Napoli, 80131, Italy
| | - Marilena Di Napoli
- Department of Urology & Gynecology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G Pascale Napoli, 80131, Italy
| | - Carmela Pisano
- Department of Urology & Gynecology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G Pascale Napoli, 80131, Italy
| | - Sabrina C Cecere
- Department of Urology & Gynecology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G Pascale Napoli, 80131, Italy
| | - Rosa Tambaro
- Department of Urology & Gynecology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G Pascale Napoli, 80131, Italy
| | - Jole Ventriglia
- Department of Urology & Gynecology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G Pascale Napoli, 80131, Italy
| | - Anna Passarelli
- Department of Urology & Gynecology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G Pascale Napoli, 80131, Italy
| | - Gelsomina Iovane
- Department of Urology & Gynecology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G Pascale Napoli, 80131, Italy
| | - Florinda Feroce
- Pathology Unit, Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione G Pascale IRCCS, Naples, 80131, Italy
| | - Secondo Lastoria
- Nuclear Medicine, Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione G Pascale IRCCS, Naples, 80131, Italy
| | - Francesca Di Gennaro
- Nuclear Medicine, Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione G Pascale IRCCS, Naples, 80131, Italy
| | - Paolo Muto
- Radiotherapy, Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione G Pascale IRCCS, Naples, 80131, Italy
| | - Valentina Borzillo
- Radiotherapy, Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione G Pascale IRCCS, Naples, 80131, Italy
| | - Rossella Di Franco
- Radiotherapy, Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione G Pascale IRCCS, Naples, 80131, Italy
| | - Sisto Perdonà
- Urology Unit, Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione G Pascale IRCCS, Naples, 80131, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Quarto
- Urology Unit, Istituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione G Pascale IRCCS, Naples, 80131, Italy
| | - Sandro Pignata
- Department of Urology & Gynecology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G Pascale Napoli, 80131, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Lapa C, Nestle U, Albert NL, Baues C, Beer A, Buck A, Budach V, Bütof R, Combs SE, Derlin T, Eiber M, Fendler WP, Furth C, Gani C, Gkika E, Grosu AL, Henkenberens C, Ilhan H, Löck S, Marnitz-Schulze S, Miederer M, Mix M, Nicolay NH, Niyazi M, Pöttgen C, Rödel CM, Schatka I, Schwarzenboeck SM, Todica AS, Weber W, Wegen S, Wiegel T, Zamboglou C, Zips D, Zöphel K, Zschaeck S, Thorwarth D, Troost EGC. Value of PET imaging for radiation therapy. Strahlenther Onkol 2021; 197:1-23. [PMID: 34259912 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-021-01812-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2021] [Accepted: 06/09/2021] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
This comprehensive review written by experts in their field gives an overview on the current status of incorporating positron emission tomography (PET) into radiation treatment planning. Moreover, it highlights ongoing studies for treatment individualisation and per-treatment tumour response monitoring for various primary tumours. Novel tracers and image analysis methods are discussed. The authors believe this contribution to be of crucial value for experts in the field as well as for policy makers deciding on the reimbursement of this powerful imaging modality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Constantin Lapa
- Nuclear Medicine, Medical Faculty, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany
| | - Ursula Nestle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kliniken Maria Hilf, Mönchengladbach, Germany
| | - Nathalie L Albert
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Christian Baues
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cyberknife and Radiotherapy, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Ambros Beer
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany
| | - Andreas Buck
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| | - Volker Budach
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin, Germany
| | - Rebecca Bütof
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Stephanie E Combs
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany
- Department of Radiation Sciences (DRS), Institute of Radiation Medicine (IRM), Neuherberg, Germany
| | - Thorsten Derlin
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
| | - Matthias Eiber
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany
| | - Wolfgang P Fendler
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK)-University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Christian Furth
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Cihan Gani
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Tübingen, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Eleni Gkika
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Anca-L Grosu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Christoph Henkenberens
- Department of Radiotherapy and Special Oncology, Medical School Hannover, Hannover, Germany
| | - Harun Ilhan
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Steffen Löck
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Simone Marnitz-Schulze
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cyberknife and Radiotherapy, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Matthias Miederer
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Mainz, Mainz, Germany
| | - Michael Mix
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Nils H Nicolay
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Maximilian Niyazi
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Christoph Pöttgen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, West German Cancer Centre, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Claus M Rödel
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Frankfurt, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Imke Schatka
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | | | - Andrei S Todica
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Wolfgang Weber
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany
| | - Simone Wegen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cyberknife and Radiotherapy, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Thomas Wiegel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany
| | - Constantinos Zamboglou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Daniel Zips
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Tübingen, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Klaus Zöphel
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany, Helmholtz Association/Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Chemnitz gGmbH, Chemnitz, Germany
| | - Sebastian Zschaeck
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Daniela Thorwarth
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Tübingen, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Section for Biomedical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Esther G C Troost
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany.
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany, Helmholtz Association/Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany.
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology-OncoRay, Dresden, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Lapa C, Nestle U, Albert NL, Baues C, Beer A, Buck A, Budach V, Bütof R, Combs SE, Derlin T, Eiber M, Fendler WP, Furth C, Gani C, Gkika E, Grosu AL, Henkenberens C, Ilhan H, Löck S, Marnitz-Schulze S, Miederer M, Mix M, Nicolay NH, Niyazi M, Pöttgen C, Rödel CM, Schatka I, Schwarzenboeck SM, Todica AS, Weber W, Wegen S, Wiegel T, Zamboglou C, Zips D, Zöphel K, Zschaeck S, Thorwarth D, Troost EGC. Value of PET imaging for radiation therapy. Nuklearmedizin 2021; 60:326-343. [PMID: 34261141 DOI: 10.1055/a-1525-7029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
This comprehensive review written by experts in their field gives an overview on the current status of incorporating positron emission tomography (PET) into radiation treatment planning. Moreover, it highlights ongoing studies for treatment individualisation and per-treatment tumour response monitoring for various primary tumours. Novel tracers and image analysis methods are discussed. The authors believe this contribution to be of crucial value for experts in the field as well as for policy makers deciding on the reimbursement of this powerful imaging modality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Constantin Lapa
- Nuclear Medicine, Medical Faculty, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany
| | - Ursula Nestle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Kliniken Maria Hilf, Mönchengladbach, Germany
| | - Nathalie L Albert
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Christian Baues
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cyberknife and Radiotherapy, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Ambros Beer
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany
| | - Andreas Buck
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| | - Volker Budach
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin, Germany
| | - Rebecca Bütof
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.,OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Stephanie E Combs
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany.,Department of Radiation Sciences (DRS), Institute of Radiation Medicine (IRM), Neuherberg, Germany
| | - Thorsten Derlin
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Germany
| | - Matthias Eiber
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany
| | - Wolfgang P Fendler
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK)-University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Christian Furth
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Cihan Gani
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Tübingen, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Eleni Gkika
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Anca L Grosu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | | | - Harun Ilhan
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Steffen Löck
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.,OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Simone Marnitz-Schulze
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cyberknife and Radiotherapy, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Matthias Miederer
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Mainz, Mainz, Germany
| | - Michael Mix
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Nils H Nicolay
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Maximilian Niyazi
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Christoph Pöttgen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, West German Cancer Centre, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Claus M Rödel
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Frankfurt, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Imke Schatka
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | | | - Andrei S Todica
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Wolfgang Weber
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany
| | - Simone Wegen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cyberknife and Radiotherapy, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Thomas Wiegel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany
| | - Constantinos Zamboglou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Daniel Zips
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Tübingen, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Klaus Zöphel
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz Association/Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.,Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Chemnitz gGmbH, Chemnitz, Germany
| | - Sebastian Zschaeck
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Daniela Thorwarth
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Tübingen, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Section for Biomedical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Esther G C Troost
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.,OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz Association/Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
| | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
Rogowski P, Trapp C, von Bestenbostel R, Schmidt-Hegemann NS, Shi R, Ilhan H, Kretschmer A, Stief C, Ganswindt U, Belka C, Li M. Outcomes of metastasis-directed therapy of bone oligometastatic prostate cancer. Radiat Oncol 2021; 16:125. [PMID: 34193194 PMCID: PMC8247211 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-021-01849-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/11/2021] [Accepted: 06/24/2021] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The aim of this work was to investigate the outcome of metastasis-directed radiotherapy (MDT) in prostate cancer patients with bone metastases following current ESTRO/EORTC subclassifications for oligometastatic disease. Methods Clinical data of 80 consecutive oligometastatic patients with 115 bone lesions receiving MDT between 2011 and 2019 were retrospectively evaluated. Hormone-sensitive (77.5%) and castrate-resistant (22.5%) patients were included. MDT was delivered with conventional fractionated or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) techniques. Kaplan–Meier method, log rank test, as well as Cox regression were used to calculate local control (LC) and biochemical and clinical progression-free survival (bPFS/cPFS). Results At the time of MDT 31% of patients had de-novo synchronous oligometastatic disease, 46% had de-novo metachronous oligorecurrence after primary treatment and 23% had either de-novo oligoprogressive disease, repeat oligometastatic disease or induced oligometastatic disease. The median BED3 was 93.3 Gy (range 75.8–95.3 Gy). Concomitant ADT was administered in 69% of patients. After a median follow-up of 23 months the median bPFS and cPFS were 16.5 and 21.5 months, respectively. The 2-year LC rate was 98.3%. In multivariate analysis, age ≤ 70 (HR = 2.60, 95% CI 1.20–5.62, p = 0.015) and concomitant ADT (HR = 0.26, 95% CI 0.12–0.58, p = 0.001) significantly correlated with cPFS. Category of oligometastatic disease and hormone-sensitivity were predictive for cPFS in univariate analysis. Of 45 patients with biochemical relapse, nineteen patients (42.2%) had repeat oligometastatic disease. Fourteen patients (31%) underwent a second course of MDT. No patients experienced grade ≥ 3 toxicities. Conclusions MDT is safe and offers high local control rates in bone oligometastases of prostate cancer. At 2 years after treatment, more than 2 out of 5 patients are progression-free. Trial registration Retrospectively registered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Rogowski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany
| | - Christian Trapp
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany
| | - Rieke von Bestenbostel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany
| | | | - Run Shi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany
| | - Harun Ilhan
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | | | - Christian Stief
- Department of Urology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Ute Ganswindt
- Department of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, Innsbruck Medical University, Anichstr. 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - Claus Belka
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Munich, Germany
| | - Minglun Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Onal C, Oymak E, Guler OC. Upfront metastasis‑directed therapy in oligorecurrent prostate cancer does not decrease the time from initiation of androgen deprivation therapy to castration resistance: in regard to Triggiani et al. Med Oncol 2021; 38:81. [PMID: 34115258 DOI: 10.1007/s12032-021-01528-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/25/2021] [Accepted: 06/04/2021] [Indexed: 01/15/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Cem Onal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Adana Dr. Turgut Noyan Research and Treatment Centre, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, 01120, Adana, Turkey.
| | - Ezgi Oymak
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Iskenderun Gelisim Hospital, Hatay, Turkey
| | - Ozan Cem Guler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Adana Dr. Turgut Noyan Research and Treatment Centre, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, 01120, Adana, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Onal C, Ozyigit G, Akgun Z, Atalar B, Igdem S, Oymak E, Agaoglu F, Selek U, Guler OC, Hurmuz P, Mustafayev TZ, Akyol F. Oligometastatic Bone Disease in Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer Patients Treated With Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy Using 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT: TROD 09-004 Study. Clin Nucl Med 2021; 46:465-470. [PMID: 33661210 DOI: 10.1097/rlu.0000000000003558] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/09/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the outcomes of metastasis-directed treatment (MDT) using stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for bone-only oligometastasis (OM) detected with gallium prostate-specific membrane antigen (68Ga-PSMA) PET/CT in castration-sensitive prostate cancer (PC) patients. METHODS In this multi-institutional study, clinical data of 74 PC patients with 153 bone lesions who were undergoing MDT were retrospectively evaluated. Twenty-seven patients (36.5%) had synchronous, and 47 (63.5%) had metachronous OM. All patients had PC with 5 metastases or fewer detected by 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT and treated using SBRT with a median dose of 20 Gy. The prognostic factors for PC-specific survival (PCSS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed. RESULTS The median follow-up was 27.3 months. Patients with synchronous OM were older and received higher rates of androgen deprivation therapy after SBRT compared with patients with metachronous OM. The 2-year PCSS and PFS rates were 92.0% and 72.0%, respectively. A prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline was observed in 56 patients (75.7%), and 48 (64.9%) had a PSA response defined as at least 25% decrease of PSA after MDT. The 2-year local control rate per lesion was 95.4%. In multivariate analysis, single OM and PSA response after MDT were significant predictors for better PCSS and PFS. In-field recurrence was observed in 4 patients (6.5%) with 10 lesions at a median of 13.1 months after MDT completion. No serious late toxicity was observed. CONCLUSIONS We demonstrated that SBRT is an efficient and well-tolerated treatment option for PC patients with 5 bone-only oligometastases or fewer detected with 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cem Onal
- From the Department of Radiation Oncology, Adana Dr Turgut Noyan Research and Treatment Center, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Adana
| | - Gokhan Ozyigit
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara
| | - Zuleyha Akgun
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sisli Hospital
| | - Banu Atalar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Acibadem MAA University Maslak Hospital
| | - Sefik Igdem
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Istanbul Bilim University, Istanbul
| | - Ezgi Oymak
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Iskenderun Gelisim Hospital, Hatay
| | - Fulya Agaoglu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Acibadem MAA University Atakent Hospital
| | - Ugur Selek
- Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, Koc University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Ozan Cem Guler
- From the Department of Radiation Oncology, Adana Dr Turgut Noyan Research and Treatment Center, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Adana
| | - Pervin Hurmuz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara
| | | | - Fadil Akyol
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Vogel MME, Dewes S, Sage EK, Devecka M, Gschwend JE, Eiber M, Combs SE, Schiller K. A survey among German-speaking radiation oncologists on PET-based radiotherapy of prostate cancer. Radiat Oncol 2021; 16:82. [PMID: 33933111 PMCID: PMC8088662 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-021-01811-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/23/2021] [Accepted: 04/21/2021] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Positron emission tomography-(PET) has evolved as a powerful tool to guide treatment for prostate cancer (PC). The aim of this survey was to evaluate the acceptance and use of PET—especially with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) targeting tracers—in clinical routine for radiotherapy (RT) and the impact on target volume definition and dose prescription. Methods We developed an online survey, which we distributed via e-mail to members of the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO). The survey included questions on patterns of care of RT for PC with/without PET. For evaluation of doses we used the equivalent dose at fractionation of 2 Gy with α/β = 1.5 Gy [EQD2(1.5 Gy)].
Results From 109 participants, 78.9% have the possibility to use PET for RT planning. Most centers use PSMA-targeting tracers (98.8%). In 39.5%, PSMA-PET for biochemical relapse after prior surgery is initiated at PSA ≥ 0.5 ng/mL, while 30.2% will perform PET at ≥ 0.2 ng/mL (≥ 1.0 ng/mL: 16.3%, ≥ 2.0 ng/mL: 2.3%, regardless of PSA: 11.7%). In case of PET-positive local recurrence (LR) and pelvic lymph nodes (LNs), 97.7% and 96.5% of the participants will apply an escalated dose. The median total dose in EQD2(1.5 Gy) was 70.00 Gy (range: 56.89–85.71) for LR and 62.00 Gy (range: 52.61–80.00) for LNs. A total number of ≤ 3 (22.0%) or ≤ 5 (20.2%) distant lesions was most often described as applicable for the definition as oligometastatic PC. Conclusion PSMA-PET is widely used among German radiation oncologists. However, specific implications on treatment planning differ among physicians. Therefore, further trials and guidelines for PET-based RT are warranted. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13014-021-01811-8.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marco M E Vogel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. .,Department of Radiation Sciences (DRS), Institute for Radiation Medicine (IRM), Helmholtz Zentrum München, Neuherberg, Germany.
| | - Sabrina Dewes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany
| | - Eva K Sage
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany
| | - Michal Devecka
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany
| | - Jürgen E Gschwend
- Department of Urology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Munich, Germany
| | - Matthias Eiber
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Munich, Germany
| | - Stephanie E Combs
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.,Department of Radiation Sciences (DRS), Institute for Radiation Medicine (IRM), Helmholtz Zentrum München, Neuherberg, Germany.,Deutsches Konsortium für Translationale Krebsforschung (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Kilian Schiller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der isar, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Stereotactic radiotherapy to oligoprogressive lesions detected with 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT in castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2021; 48:3683-3692. [PMID: 33693965 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-021-05298-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/16/2020] [Accepted: 02/28/2021] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE We assessed the outcomes of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) to treat oligoprogressive castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) patients with ≤5 lesions using gallium prostate-specific membrane antigen-positron emission tomography (68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT). METHODS The clinical data of 67 CRPC patients with 133 lesions treated with 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT-based SBRT were retrospectively analyzed. All of the patients had oligoprogressive disease during androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). The prognostic factors for overall- (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and the predictive factors for switching to next-line systemic treatment (NEST) and NEST-free survival (NEST-FS) were analyzed. RESULTS With a median follow-up of 17.5 months, the 2-year overall survival (OS) and PFS rates were 86.9% and 34.4%, respectively. The PSA response was observed in 49 patients (73.1%). Progression was observed in 37 patients (55.2%) at a median of 11.0 months following SBRT. A total of 45 patients (67.2%) remained on ADT after SBRT, and 22 patients (32.8%) had a NEST change at a median of 16.4 months after metastasis-directed treatment (MDT). Patients with a NEST change had higher post-SBRT PSA values and fewer PSA nadirs after MDT than their counterparts. In multivariate analysis, higher pre-SBRT PSA values were the only significant predictor for worse OS and NEST-FS, and no significant factor was found for PFS. No serious acute or late toxicities were observed. CONCLUSION This study demonstrated the feasibility of MDT using SBRT to treat oligoprogressive lesions by 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT in CRPC patients is efficient and well-tolerated, prolonging the effectiveness of ADT by delaying NEST.
Collapse
|
29
|
Rogowski P, Roach M, Schmidt-Hegemann NS, Trapp C, von Bestenbostel R, Shi R, Buchner A, Stief C, Belka C, Li M. Radiotherapy of oligometastatic prostate cancer: a systematic review. Radiat Oncol 2021; 16:50. [PMID: 33750437 PMCID: PMC7941976 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-021-01776-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2021] [Accepted: 02/24/2021] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Due to improved imaging sensitivity, the term "oligometastatic" prostate cancer disease is diagnosed more often, leading to an increasing interest in metastasis-directed therapy (MDT). There are two types of radiation based MDT applied when treating oligometastatic disease: (1) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) generally used for bone metastases; or (2) SBRT for isolated nodal oligometastases combined with prophylactic elective nodal radiotherapy. This review aims to summarize current evidence data, which may shed light on the optimal management of this heterogeneous group of patients. METHODS A systematic review of the Medline database through PubMed was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. All relevant studies published up to November 2020 were identified and screened. Fifty-six titles were included. Besides outcome parameters, different prognostic and predictive factors were assessed, including site of metastases, time between primary treatment and MDT, use of systemic therapies, hormone sensitivity, as well as pattern of recurrence. FINDINGS Evidence consists largely of retrospective case series and no consistent precise definition of oligometastasis exists, however, most investigators seem to acknowledge the need to distinguish between patients presenting with what is frequently called "synchronous" versus "metachronous" oligometastatic disease. Available data on radiotherapy as MDT demonstrate high local control rates and a small but relevant proportion of patients without progressive disease after 2 years. This holds true for both hormone sensitive and castration resistant prostate cancer diseases. The use of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT for staging increased dramatically. Radiation doses and field sizes varied considerably among the studies. The search for relevant prognostic and predictive factors is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS To our best knowledge this review on oligometastatic prostate cancer included the largest number of original articles. It demonstrates the therapeutic potential and challenges of MDT for oligometastatic prostate cancer. Prospective studies are under way and will provide further high-level evidence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Rogowski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Mack Roach
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, 1600 Divisadero Street, Suite H 1031, San Francisco, CA 94143-1708 USA
| | | | - Christian Trapp
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Rieke von Bestenbostel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Run Shi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Alexander Buchner
- Department of Urology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Christian Stief
- Department of Urology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany
| | - Claus Belka
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Munich, Germany
| | - Minglun Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Farolfi A, Hadaschik B, Hamdy FC, Herrmann K, Hofman MS, Murphy DG, Ost P, Padhani AR, Fanti S. Positron Emission Tomography and Whole-body Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Metastasis-directed Therapy in Hormone-sensitive Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer After Primary Radical Treatment: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol Oncol 2021; 4:714-730. [PMID: 33750684 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2021.02.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/22/2020] [Revised: 01/18/2021] [Accepted: 02/12/2021] [Indexed: 01/15/2023]
Abstract
CONTEXT Next-generation imaging includes positron emission tomography (PET) imaging and whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (wbMRI) including diffusion-weighted imaging. Accurate quantification of oligometastatic disease using next-generation imaging is important to define the role and value of metastasis-directed therapy (MDT). OBJECTIVE To perform a review of next-generation imaging modalities in the detection of recurrent oligometastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in men who received prior radical treatment for localized disease. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Libraries, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched for studies reporting next-generation imaging and oncological outcomes. An expert panel of urologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, and nuclear medicine physicians performed a nonsystematic review of strengths and limitations of currently available imaging options for detecting the presence and extent of recurrent oligometastatic disease. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS From 370 articles identified, three clinical trials and 21 observational studies met the following inclusion criteria: metachronous oligometastatic recurrence after radical treatment for prostate cancer, MDT, and hormone-sensitive patients. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was allowed before MDT. Next-generation imaging modalities included PET/computed tomography and/or PET/MRI with the following tracers: choline (n = 1), NaF (n = 1), and prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA; n = 1) for clinical trials; choline (n = 7) or PSMA (n = 11) or both (n = 3) for observational studies. The number of metastases ranged from two to five lesions in most studies. In PSMA-based studies, progression-free survival ranged from 19% to 100%, whereas in studies employing choline, progression-free survival ranged from 16% to 93%. Overall, ADT-free survival ranged from 48% to 79%, while local control was reported as 75-100% and prostate-specific antigen response as 23-94%. Among the different PET tracers and wbMRI, PSMA PET is emerging as the most accurate imaging technique in defining the oligometastatic status. CONCLUSIONS PSMA and choline PET contribute to guiding MDT in men with hormone-sensitive oligometastatic prostate cancer. Further studies are warranted to ascertain their role and optimize the timing of imaging for such patients. PATIENT SUMMARY We looked at the evidence regarding the use of modern imaging techniques to direct additional treatments in men with early spread of prostate cancer after they receive their initial radical treatment. We found that next-generation imaging, in particular prostate-specific membrane antigen and choline positron emission tomography, can successfully guide metastasis-directed therapies, and further trials should evaluate which modalities are best suited to improve outcomes for our patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Farolfi
- Nuclear Medicine Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
| | - Boris Hadaschik
- Department of Urology, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK)-University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Freddie C Hamdy
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Ken Herrmann
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK)-University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Michael S Hofman
- Prostate Cancer Theranostics and Imaging Centre of Excellence (ProsTIC), Molecular Imaging and Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Declan G Murphy
- Prostate Cancer Theranostics and Imaging Centre of Excellence (ProsTIC), Molecular Imaging and Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Piet Ost
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Anwar R Padhani
- Paul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, Middlesex, UK
| | - Stefano Fanti
- Nuclear Medicine Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Role of 18F-Fluciclovine and Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen PET/CT in Guiding Management of Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021; 216:851-859. [PMID: 33206564 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.20.24711] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
Twenty-five years ago, oligometastatic disease was proposed as an intermediary clinical state of cancer with unique implications for therapies that may impact cancer evolution and patient outcome. Identification of limited metastases that are potentially amenable to targeted therapies fundamentally depends on the sensitivity of diagnostic tools, including new-generation imaging methods. For men with biochemical recurrence after definitive therapy of the primary prostate cancer, PET/CT using either the FDA-approved radiolabeled amino acid analogue 18F-fluciclovine or investigational radiolabeled agents targeting prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) enables identification of early metastases at lower serum PSA levels than was previously feasible using conventional imaging. Evidence supports PSMA PET/CT as the most sensitive imaging modality available for identifying disease sites in oligometastatic prostate cancer. PSMA PET/CT will likely become the modality of choice after regulatory approval and will drive the development of trials of emerging metastasis-directed therapies such as stereotactic ablative body radiation and radioguided surgery. Indeed, numerous ongoing or planned clinical trials are studying advances in management of oligometastatic prostate cancer based on this heightened diagnostic capacity. In this rapidly evolving clinical environment, radiologists and nuclear medicine physicians will play major roles in facilitating clinical decision making and management of patients with oligometastatic prostate cancer.
Collapse
|
32
|
Kalinauskaite G, Senger C, Kluge A, Furth C, Kufeld M, Tinhofer I, Budach V, Beck M, Hochreiter A, Grün A, Stromberger C. 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT-based radiosurgery and stereotactic body radiotherapy for oligometastatic prostate cancer. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0240892. [PMID: 33085712 PMCID: PMC7577453 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240892] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2020] [Accepted: 10/05/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) remains the standard therapy for patients with oligometastatic prostate cancer (OMPC). Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PSMA-PET/CT)-based stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is emerging as an alternative option to postpone starting ADT and its associated side effects including the development of drug resistance. The aim of this study was to determine progression free-survival (PFS) and treatment failure free-survival (TFFS) after PSMA-PET/CT-based SBRT in OMPC patients. The efficacy and safety of single fraction radiosurgery (SFRS) and ADT delay were investigated. Methods Patients with ≤5 metastases from OMPC, with/without ADT treated with PSMA-PET/CT-based SBRT were retrospectively analyzed. PFS and TFFS were primary endpoints. Secondary endpoints were local control (LC), overall survival (OS) and ADT-free survival (ADTFS). Results Fifty patients with a total of 75 metastases detected by PSMA-PET/CT were analyzed. At the time of SBRT, 70% of patients were castration-sensitive. Overall, 80% of metastases were treated with SFRS (median dose 20 Gy, range: 16–25). After median follow-up of 34 months (range: 5–70) median PFS and TFFS were 12 months (range: 2–63) and 14 months (range: 2–70), respectively. Thirty-two (64%) patients had repeat oligometastatic disease. Twenty-four (48%) patients with progression underwent second SBRT course. Two-year LC after SFRS was 96%. Grade 1 and 2 toxicity occurred in 3 (6%) and 1 (2%) patients, respectively. ADTFS and OS rates at 2-years were 60.5% and 100%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, TFFS significantly improved in patients with time to first metastasis (TTM) >36 months (p = 0.01) and PSA before SBRT ≤1 ng/ml (p = 0.03). Conclusion For patients with OMPC, SBRT might be used as an alternative to ADT. This way, the start/escalation of palliative ADT and its side effects can be deferred. Metastases treated with PSMA-PET/CT-based SFRS reached excellent LC with minimal toxicity. Low PSA levels and longer TTM predict elongated TFFS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Goda Kalinauskaite
- Charité –Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Radiation Oncology and Radiotherapy, Berlin, Germany
- Charité CyberKnife Center, Departments of Radiation Oncology and Neurosurgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
- * E-mail:
| | - Carolin Senger
- Charité –Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Radiation Oncology and Radiotherapy, Berlin, Germany
- Charité CyberKnife Center, Departments of Radiation Oncology and Neurosurgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Anne Kluge
- Charité –Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Radiation Oncology and Radiotherapy, Berlin, Germany
- Charité CyberKnife Center, Departments of Radiation Oncology and Neurosurgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Christian Furth
- Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Berlin, Germany
| | - Markus Kufeld
- Charité CyberKnife Center, Departments of Radiation Oncology and Neurosurgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Ingeborg Tinhofer
- Charité –Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Radiation Oncology and Radiotherapy, Berlin, Germany
- The Translational Radiooncology and Radiobiology Research Laboratory, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Volker Budach
- Charité –Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Radiation Oncology and Radiotherapy, Berlin, Germany
- Charité CyberKnife Center, Departments of Radiation Oncology and Neurosurgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Marcus Beck
- Charité –Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Radiation Oncology and Radiotherapy, Berlin, Germany
- Charité CyberKnife Center, Departments of Radiation Oncology and Neurosurgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Alexandra Hochreiter
- Charité –Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Radiation Oncology and Radiotherapy, Berlin, Germany
| | - Arne Grün
- Charité –Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Radiation Oncology and Radiotherapy, Berlin, Germany
- Charité CyberKnife Center, Departments of Radiation Oncology and Neurosurgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Carmen Stromberger
- Charité –Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Radiation Oncology and Radiotherapy, Berlin, Germany
- Charité CyberKnife Center, Departments of Radiation Oncology and Neurosurgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| |
Collapse
|