1
|
Chan K, Ghani DAM, Teoh J, Brodie A, Gan C, Foley C, Dasgupta P, Vasdev N. Optimising prostate biopsies and imaging for the future-a review. Urol Oncol 2024:S1078-1439(24)00637-9. [PMID: 39299895 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.08.019] [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: 02/17/2024] [Revised: 08/09/2024] [Accepted: 08/25/2024] [Indexed: 09/22/2024]
Abstract
Conventionally, transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx) was the main technique used for the diagnosis of prostate cancer since it was first described in 1989 [1]. However, the PROMIS trial showed that this random, nontargeted approach could miss up to 18% of clinically significant cancer (csPCa) [2]. Furthermore, risk of sepsis post TRUS-Bx can be as high as 2.4% [3]. Understanding the demerits of TR-biopsy have led to the introduction of transperineal prostate biopsy (TP-Bx). The incorporation of mpMRI revolutionized prostate cancer diagnostics, allowing visualization of areas likely to harbor csPCa whilst permitting some men to avoid an immediate biopsy. Furthermore, the advent of prostate specific membrane antigen-positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) is highly promising, because of its role in primary diagnosis of prostate cancer and its higher diagnostic accuracy over conventional imaging in detecting nodal and metastatic lesions. Our narrative review provides an overview on prostate biopsy techniques and an update on prostate imaging, with particular focus on PSMA-PET.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kimberley Chan
- Department of Urology, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire Urological Cancer Center, Lister Hospital, Stevenage.
| | | | - Jeremy Teoh
- Department of Surgery, S.H. Ho Urology Center, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China; Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Andrew Brodie
- Department of Urology, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire Urological Cancer Center, Lister Hospital, Stevenage
| | - Christine Gan
- Department of Urology, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire Urological Cancer Center, Lister Hospital, Stevenage
| | - Charlotte Foley
- Department of Urology, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire Urological Cancer Center, Lister Hospital, Stevenage
| | - Prokar Dasgupta
- Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Nikhil Vasdev
- Department of Urology, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire Urological Cancer Center, Lister Hospital, Stevenage; School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Akin O, Woo S, Oto A, Allen BC, Avery R, Barker SJ, Gerena M, Halpern DJ, Gettle LM, Rosenthal SA, Taneja SS, Turkbey B, Whitworth P, Nikolaidis P. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Pretreatment Detection, Surveillance, and Staging of Prostate Cancer: 2022 Update. J Am Coll Radiol 2023; 20:S187-S210. [PMID: 37236742 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2023.02.010] [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: 02/21/2023] [Accepted: 02/27/2023] [Indexed: 05/28/2023]
Abstract
Prostate cancer is second leading cause of death from malignancy after lung cancer in American men. The primary goal during pretreatment evaluation of prostate cancer is disease detection, localization, establishing disease extent (both local and distant), and evaluating aggressiveness, which are the driving factors of patient outcomes such as recurrence and survival. Prostate cancer is typically diagnosed after the recognizing elevated serum prostate-specific antigen level or abnormal digital rectal examination. Tissue diagnosis is obtained by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy or MRI-targeted biopsy, commonly with multiparametric MRI without or with intravenous contrast, which has recently been established as standard of care for detecting, localizing, and assessing local extent of prostate cancer. Although bone scintigraphy and CT are still typically used to detect bone and nodal metastases in patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer, novel advanced imaging modalities including prostatespecific membrane antigen PET/CT and whole-body MRI are being more frequently utilized for this purpose with improved detection rates. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Oguz Akin
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
| | - Sungmin Woo
- Research Author, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Aytekin Oto
- Panel Chair, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Brian C Allen
- Panel Vice-Chair, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Ryan Avery
- Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; Commission on Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
| | - Samantha J Barker
- University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Director of Ultrasound M Health Fairview
| | | | - David J Halpern
- Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, Primary care physician
| | | | - Seth A Rosenthal
- Sutter Medical Group, Sacramento, California; Commission on Radiation Oncology; Member, RTOG Foundation Board of Directors
| | - Samir S Taneja
- NYU Clinical Cancer Center, New York, New York; American Urological Association
| | - Baris Turkbey
- National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Pat Whitworth
- Thomas F. Frist, Jr College of Medicine, Belmont University, Nashville, Tennessee
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Metz R, Rauscher A, Vaugier L, Supiot S, Drouet F, Campion L, Rousseau C. Comparison of Hormone-Sensitive Oligorecurrent Prostate Cancer Patients Based on Routine Use of Choline and/or PSMA PET/CT to Guide Metastasis-Directed Therapy. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:cancers15061898. [PMID: 36980784 PMCID: PMC10047404 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15061898] [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: 02/02/2023] [Revised: 03/17/2023] [Accepted: 03/20/2023] [Indexed: 03/30/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In hormone-sensitive oligorecurrent prostate cancer (PC), the literature showed [68Ga]Ga-PSMA (PSMA) and [18F]F-choline (FCH) PET/CT can successfully guide metastasis-directed therapies (MDT). This observational retrospective study aimed to explore, in routine use, the impact of FCH or PSMA PET/CT in guiding MDT for hormone-sensitive oligometastatic PC at different recurrences. METHODS In 2017-2020, patients initially treated with radical prostatectomy but, in biochemical recurrence (with PSA ≤ 2 ng/mL), diagnosed as oligometastatic based on FCH or PSMA PET/CT, were identified. MDT was stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), elective nodal or prostate bed radiotherapy ± boost and ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The primary endpoint was biochemical relapse-free survival (BR-FS), defined as a PSA increase ≥ 0.2 ng/mL above the nadir and increasing over two successive samples and the secondaries were ADT-free survival (ADT-FS). RESULTS 123 patients (70 PSMA and 53 FCH) were included. The median follow-up was 42.2 months. The median BR-FS was 24.7 months in the PSMA group versus 13.0 months in the FCH group (p = 0.008). Similarly, ADT-FS (p = 0.001) was longer in patients in the PSMA group. In multivariate analysis, a short PSA doubling time before imaging (p = 0.005) and MDT with SBRT (p = 0.001) were poor prognostic factors for BR-FS. CONCLUSIONS Routine use of FCH or PSMA PET/CT in hormone-sensitive PC showed an advantage for using PSMA PET/CT to guide MDT in terms of BR-FS and ADT-FS in patients with low PSA value. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these hypotheses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Raphaël Metz
- Nuclear Medicine Department, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Boulevard J. Monod, F-44800 St-Herblain, France
| | - Aurore Rauscher
- Nuclear Medicine Department, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Boulevard J. Monod, F-44800 St-Herblain, France
| | - Loïg Vaugier
- Radiation Oncology Department, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Boulevard J. Monod, F-44800 St-Herblain, France
| | - Stéphane Supiot
- Radiation Oncology Department, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Boulevard J. Monod, F-44800 St-Herblain, France
- Laboratoire US2B, Unité en Sciences Biologiques et Biotechnologies, UMR CNRS 6286, UFR SCIENCES ET TECHNIQUES, 2, Rue de la Houssinière, F-44322 Nantes, France
| | - Franck Drouet
- Radiation Oncology Department, Clinique Mutualiste de l'Estuaire, F-44600 Saint-Nazaire, France
| | - Loic Campion
- Biostatistics Department, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Boulevard J. Monod, F-44800 St-Herblain, France
- Nantes Université, Univ Angers, INSERM, CNRS, CRCI2NA, F-44000 Nantes, France
| | - Caroline Rousseau
- Nuclear Medicine Department, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Boulevard J. Monod, F-44800 St-Herblain, France
- Nantes Université, Univ Angers, INSERM, CNRS, CRCI2NA, F-44000 Nantes, France
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Kaewput C, Vinjamuri S. Update of PSMA Theranostics in Prostate Cancer: Current Applications and Future Trends. J Clin Med 2022; 11:jcm11102738. [PMID: 35628867 PMCID: PMC9144463 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11102738] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2022] [Revised: 05/10/2022] [Accepted: 05/11/2022] [Indexed: 02/02/2023] Open
Abstract
There is now an increasing trend for targeting cancers to go beyond early diagnosis and actually improve Progression-Free Survival and Overall Survival. Identifying patients who might benefit from a particular targeted treatment is the main focus for Precision Medicine. Radiolabeled ligands can be used as predictive biomarkers which can confirm target expression by cancers using positron emission tomography (PET). The same ligand can subsequently be labeled with a therapeutic radionuclide for targeted radionuclide therapy. This combined approach is termed “Theranostics”. The prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) has emerged as an attractive diagnostic and therapeutic target for small molecule ligands in prostate cancer. It can be labeled with either positron emitters for PET-based imaging or beta and alpha emitters for targeted radionuclide therapy. This review article summarizes the important concepts for Precision Medicine contributing to improved diagnosis and targeted therapy of patients with prostate cancer and we identify some key learning points and areas for further research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chalermrat Kaewput
- Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10700, Thailand
- Correspondence:
| | - Sobhan Vinjamuri
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool L7 8XP, UK;
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
A Bone Scan Is Valuable for Primary Staging of Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer in a Low-Resource Setting (Nigeria). Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2022; 56:96-101. [PMID: 35464673 PMCID: PMC8976715 DOI: 10.1007/s13139-021-00735-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/07/2021] [Revised: 11/24/2021] [Accepted: 12/23/2021] [Indexed: 10/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective There is a paucity of information on bone scanning for prostate cancer from low-resource countries. This study evaluated the role of bone scan in the primary staging of newly diagnosed prostate cancer in one such setting. Methods A retrospective analysis of 126 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer undergoing an initial staging bone scan between January 2017 and December 2020 was carried out at a regional nuclear medicine center in Nigeria. Bone scan results were analyzed according to age, serum level of baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and Gleason score. Equivocal scans and patients with no Gleason score or baseline PSA were excluded from the analysis. p < 0.05 was said to be significant statistically. Results Of 111 patients (aged 38-84 years, median 66 years), who met the inclusion criteria, 26 (23%) men had evidence of bony metastases as shown by a positive bone scan. Higher PSA levels and Gleason scores were associated with an increased risk of a positive bone scan, p < 0.001. No patient with a PSA level < 20 ng/mL and a Gleason score of < 7 had a positive bone scan. Conclusion The role of bone scanning in staging newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients in Nigeria is consistent with global reports. Our study confirms that a bone scan finding is well associated with the risk classification using PSA and Gleason score in our population.
Collapse
|
6
|
Zhang J, Zhai G, Yang B, Liu Z. Computerized Tomography (CT) Updates and Challenges in Diagnosis of Bone Metastases During Prostate Cancer. Curr Med Imaging 2021; 16:565-571. [PMID: 32484090 DOI: 10.2174/1573405614666181009144601] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/15/2018] [Revised: 09/05/2018] [Accepted: 09/19/2018] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers in men. This cancer is often associated with indolent tumors with little or no lethal potential. Some of the patients with aggressive prostate cancer have increased morbidity and early deaths. A major complication in advanced prostate cancer is bone metastasis that mainly results in pain, pathological fractures, and compression of spinal nerves. These complications in turn cause severe pain radiating to the extremities and possibly sensory as well as motor disturbances. Further, in patients with a high risk of metastases, treatment is limited to palliative therapies. Therefore, accurate methods for the detection of bone metastases are essential. Technical advances such as single-photon emission computed tomography/ computed tomography (SPECT/CT) have emerged after the introduction of bone scans. These advanced methods allow tomographic image acquisition and help in attenuation correction with anatomical co-localization. The use of positron emission tomography/CT (PET/CT) scanners is also on the rise. These PET scanners are mainly utilized with 18F-sodium-fluoride (NaF), in order to visualize the skeleton and possible changes. Moreover, NaF PET/CT is associated with higher tracer uptake, increased target-to-background ratio and has a higher spatial resolution. However, these newer technologies have not been adopted in clinical guidelines due to lack of definite evidence in support of their use in bone metastases cases. The present review article is focused on current perspectives and challenges of computerized tomography (CT) applications in cases of bone metastases during prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jinguo Zhang
- Department of Radiology, Dezhou People's Hospital, Dezhou, Shandong, China
| | - Guanzhong Zhai
- Department of Radiology, Dezhou People's Hospital, Dezhou, Shandong, China
| | - Bin Yang
- Department of Radiology, Dezhou People's Hospital, Dezhou, Shandong, China
| | - Zhenhe Liu
- Department of Radiology, Dezhou People's Hospital, Dezhou, Shandong, China
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Ozdemir S, Ersay AR, Koc Ozturk F, Ozdemir BS. Predictive value of standard serum markers for bone metastases in prostate cancer. AFRICAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY 2021. [DOI: 10.1186/s12301-021-00170-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Background
The early detection of bone metastases is very important in prostate cancer follow-up. This study aimed to compare conventional tumor markers, namely free prostate-specific antigen (free PSA), total prostate-specific antigen (total PSA), free PSA/total PSA ratio, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) values, Gleason scores and 99 m Tc-MDP bone scintigraphy findings in the prediction of bone metastases in prostate cancer.
Methods
In total, 175 patients with prostate cancer who underwent whole-body bone scintigraphy were included in the study. All selected scintigraphic studies were reprocessed. Free PSA, total PSA, free PSA/total PSA ratio, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) values and Gleason scores of patients were recorded.
Results
The results of our study show that the presence of bone metastasis correlates very weakly with free PSA/total PSA ratio (rho = 0.179), weakly with total PSA (rho = 0.318) and Gleason score (rho = 0.382), moderately with ALP (rho = 0.539), free PSA (0.416). Only ALP variable had a diagnostic value and ALP cutoff value was 76.50 IU/L, with 80% sensitivity and 82.1% specificity.
Conclusion
According to the results of our study; the free PSA, total PSA, free PSA/total PSA ratio and Gleason score values were not considered as a reliable parameter in the prostate cancer cases follow-up for bone metastasis development. Only ALP had a diagnostic value and ALP cutoff value was 76.50 IU / L with 80% sensitivity and 82.1% specificity in predicting bone metastases in prostate cancer.
Collapse
|
8
|
Jadvar H, Ballas LK, Choyke PL, Fanti S, Gulley JL, Herrmann K, Hope TA, Klitzke AK, Oldan JD, Pomper MG, Rowe SP, Subramaniam RM, Taneja SS, Vargas HA, Ahuja S. Appropriate Use Criteria for Imaging Evaluation of Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer After Definitive Primary Treatment. J Nucl Med 2020; 61:552-562. [PMID: 32238495 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.119.240929] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/12/2019] [Accepted: 12/12/2019] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Hossein Jadvar
- Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Reston, Virginia
| | - Leslie K Ballas
- American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, Virginia
| | - Peter L Choyke
- American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, Virginia
| | - Stefano Fanti
- European Association of Nuclear Medicine, Vienna, Austria
| | - James L Gulley
- American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Ken Herrmann
- European Association of Nuclear Medicine, Vienna, Austria
| | - Thomas A Hope
- Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Reston, Virginia
| | | | - Jorge D Oldan
- Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Reston, Virginia.,American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, Virginia
| | | | - Steven P Rowe
- Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Reston, Virginia
| | - Rathan M Subramaniam
- American College of Nuclear Medicine, Reston, Virginia.,American College of Radiology, Reston, Virginia; and
| | - Samir S Taneja
- American Urological Association, Linthicum Heights, Maryland
| | | | - Sukhjeet Ahuja
- Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Reston, Virginia
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Abstract
Prostate cancer is the commonest malignancy to affect men in the United Kingdom. Extraprostatic disease detection at staging and in the setting of biochemical recurrence is essential in determining treatment strategy. Conventional imaging including computed tomography and bone scintigraphy are limited in their ability to detect sites of loco-regional nodal and metastatic bone disease, particularly at clinically relevant low prostate-specific antigen levels. The use of positron emission tomography-computed tomography has helped overcome these deficiencies and is leading a paradigm shift in the management of prostate cancer using a wide range of radiopharmaceuticals. Their mechanisms of action, utility in both staging and biochemical recurrence, and comparative strengths and weaknesses will be covered in this article.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Manil Subesinghe
- King's College London & Guy's & St. Thomas' PET Centre, St. Thomas' Hospital, London, UK; Department of Cancer Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
| | - Meghana Kulkarni
- Department of Cancer Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Gary J Cook
- King's College London & Guy's & St. Thomas' PET Centre, St. Thomas' Hospital, London, UK; Department of Cancer Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Anttinen M, Ettala O, Malaspina S, Jambor I, Sandell M, Kajander S, Rinta-Kiikka I, Schildt J, Saukko E, Rautio P, Timonen KL, Matikainen T, Noponen T, Saunavaara J, Löyttyniemi E, Taimen P, Kemppainen J, Dean PB, Blanco Sequeiros R, Aronen HJ, Seppänen M, Boström PJ. A Prospective Comparison of 18F-prostate-specific Membrane Antigen-1007 Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography, Whole-body 1.5 T Magnetic Resonance Imaging with Diffusion-weighted Imaging, and Single-photon Emission Computed Tomography/Computed Tomography with Traditional Imaging in Primary Distant Metastasis Staging of Prostate Cancer (PROSTAGE). Eur Urol Oncol 2020; 4:635-644. [PMID: 32675047 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2020.06.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 56] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/06/2020] [Revised: 06/08/2020] [Accepted: 06/29/2020] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Computed tomography (CT) and bone scintigraphy (BS) are the imaging modalities currently used for distant metastasis staging of prostate cancer (PCa). OBJECTIVE To compare standard staging modalities with newer and potentially more accurate imaging modalities. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This prospective, single-centre trial (NCT03537391) enrolled 80 patients with newly diagnosed high-risk PCa (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥3 and/or prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≥20 and/or cT ≥ T3; March 2018-June 2019) to undergo primary metastasis staging with two standard and three advanced imaging modalities. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The participants underwent the following five imaging examinations within 2 wk of enrolment and without a prespecified sequence: BS, CT, 99mTc-hydroxymethylene diphosphonate (99mTc-HMDP) single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)-CT, 1.5 T whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WBMRI) using diffusion-weighted imaging, and 18F-prostate-specific membrane antigen-1007 (18F-PSMA-1007) positron emission tomography(PET)-CT. Each modality was reviewed by two independent experts blinded to the results of the prior studies, who classified lesions as benign, equivocal, or malignant. Pessimistic and optimistic analyses were performed to resolve each equivocal diagnosis. The reference standard diagnosis was defined using all available information accrued during at least 12 mo of clinical follow-up. Patients with equivocal reference standard diagnoses underwent MRI and/or CT to search for the development of anatomical correspondence. PSMA PET-avid lesions without histopathological verification were rated to be malignant only if there was a corresponding anatomical finding suspicious for malignancy at the primary or follow-up imaging. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Seventy-nine men underwent all imaging modalities except for one case of interrupted MRI. The median interval per patient between the first and the last imaging study was 8 d (interquartile range [IQR]: 6-9). The mean age was 70 yr (standard deviation: 7) and median PSA 12 ng/mL (IQR:7-23). The median follow-up was 435 d (IQR: 378-557). Metastatic disease was detected in 20 (25%) patients. The imaging modality 18F-PSMA-1007 PET-CT had superior sensitivity and highest inter-reader agreement. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) values for bone metastasis detection with PSMA PET-CT were 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85-0.95) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.87-0.96) for readers 1 and 2, respectively, while the AUC values for BS, CT, SPECT-CT, and WBMRI were 0.71 (95% CI: 0.58-0.84) and 0.8 (95% CI: 0.67-0.92), 0.53 (95% CI: 0.39-0.67) and 0.66 (95% CI: 0.54-0.77), 0.77 (95% CI: 0.65-0.89) and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.62-0.88), and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.74-0.96) and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.54-0.80), respectively, for the other four pairs of readers. The imaging method 18F-PSMA-1007 PET-CT detected metastatic disease in 11/20 patients in whom standard imaging was negative and influenced clinical decision making in 14/79 (18%) patients. In 12/79 cases, false positive bone disease was reported only by PSMA PET-CT. Limitations included a nonrandomised study setting and few histopathologically validated suspicious lesions. CONCLUSIONS Despite the risk of false positive bone lesions, 18F-PSMA-1007 PET-CT outperformed all other imaging methods studied for the detection of primary distant metastasis in high-risk PCa. PATIENT SUMMARY In this report, we compared the diagnostic performance of conventional and advanced imaging. It was found that 18F-prostate-specific membrane antigen-1007 positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-PSMA-1007 PET-CT) was superior to the other imaging modalities studied for the detection of distant metastasis at the time of initial diagnosis of high-risk prostate cancer. PSMA PET-CT also appears to detect some nonmetastatic bone lesions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mikael Anttinen
- Department of Urology, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
| | - Otto Ettala
- Department of Urology, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
| | - Simona Malaspina
- Turku PET Centre, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
| | - Ivan Jambor
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland; Department of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| | - Minna Sandell
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
| | - Sami Kajander
- Turku PET Centre, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
| | - Irina Rinta-Kiikka
- Department of Radiology, Tampere University and Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland
| | - Jukka Schildt
- Department of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Ekaterina Saukko
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
| | - Pentti Rautio
- Department of Clinical Physiology, North Karelia Central Hospital, Joensuu, Finland
| | - Kirsi L Timonen
- Department of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Central Hospital of Central Finland, Jyväskylä, Finland
| | - Tuomas Matikainen
- Department of Urology, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
| | - Tommi Noponen
- Department of Medical Physics and Nuclear Medicine, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
| | - Jani Saunavaara
- Department of Medical Physics and Nuclear Medicine, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
| | | | - Pekka Taimen
- Institute of Biomedicine, University of Turku and Department of Pathology, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
| | - Jukka Kemppainen
- Turku PET Centre, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
| | - Peter B Dean
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
| | - Roberto Blanco Sequeiros
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
| | - Hannu J Aronen
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
| | - Marko Seppänen
- Department of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine and Turku PET Centre, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
| | - Peter J Boström
- Department of Urology, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Trabulsi EJ, Rumble RB, Jadvar H, Hope T, Pomper M, Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Verma S, Margolis DJ, Froemming A, Oto A, Purysko A, Milowsky MI, Schlemmer HP, Eiber M, Morris MJ, Choyke PL, Padhani A, Oldan J, Fanti S, Jain S, Pinto PA, Keegan KA, Porter CR, Coleman JA, Bauman GS, Jani AB, Kamradt JM, Sholes W, Vargas HA. Optimum Imaging Strategies for Advanced Prostate Cancer: ASCO Guideline. J Clin Oncol 2020; 38:1963-1996. [PMID: 31940221 DOI: 10.1200/jco.19.02757] [Citation(s) in RCA: 105] [Impact Index Per Article: 26.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Provide evidence- and expert-based recommendations for optimal use of imaging in advanced prostate cancer. Due to increases in research and utilization of novel imaging for advanced prostate cancer, this guideline is intended to outline techniques available and provide recommendations on appropriate use of imaging for specified patient subgroups. METHODS An Expert Panel was convened with members from ASCO and the Society of Abdominal Radiology, American College of Radiology, Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, American Urological Association, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Urologic Oncology to conduct a systematic review of the literature and develop an evidence-based guideline on the optimal use of imaging for advanced prostate cancer. Representative index cases of various prostate cancer disease states are presented, including suspected high-risk disease, newly diagnosed treatment-naïve metastatic disease, suspected recurrent disease after local treatment, and progressive disease while undergoing systemic treatment. A systematic review of the literature from 2013 to August 2018 identified fully published English-language systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses, reports of rigorously conducted phase III randomized controlled trials that compared ≥ 2 imaging modalities, and noncomparative studies that reported on the efficacy of a single imaging modality. RESULTS A total of 35 studies met inclusion criteria and form the evidence base, including 17 systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis and 18 primary research articles. RECOMMENDATIONS One or more of these imaging modalities should be used for patients with advanced prostate cancer: conventional imaging (defined as computed tomography [CT], bone scan, and/or prostate magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) and/or next-generation imaging (NGI), positron emission tomography [PET], PET/CT, PET/MRI, or whole-body MRI) according to the clinical scenario.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Edouard J Trabulsi
- Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA
| | | | | | - Thomas Hope
- University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
| | | | | | | | - Sadhna Verma
- University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Anwar Padhani
- Paul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, United Kingdom
| | - Jorge Oldan
- UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC
| | | | - Suneil Jain
- Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Westley Sholes
- Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA
| | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Adeleke S, Latifoltojar A, Sidhu H, Galazi M, Shah TT, Clemente J, Davda R, Payne HA, Chouhan MD, Lioumi M, Chua S, Freeman A, Rodriguez-Justo M, Coolen A, Vadgama S, Morris S, Cook GJ, Bomanji J, Arya M, Chowdhury S, Wan S, Haroon A, Ng T, Ahmed HU, Punwani S. Localising occult prostate cancer metastasis with advanced imaging techniques (LOCATE trial): a prospective cohort, observational diagnostic accuracy trial investigating whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in radio-recurrent prostate cancer. BMC Med Imaging 2019; 19:90. [PMID: 31730466 PMCID: PMC6858718 DOI: 10.1186/s12880-019-0380-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/23/2019] [Accepted: 09/13/2019] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Accurate whole-body staging following biochemical relapse in prostate cancer is vital in determining the optimum disease management. Current imaging guidelines recommend various imaging platforms such as computed tomography (CT), Technetium 99 m (99mTc) bone scan and 18F-choline and recently 68Ga-PSMA positron emission tomography (PET) for the evaluation of the extent of disease. Such approach requires multiple hospital attendances and can be time and resource intensive. Recently, whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) has been used in a single visit scanning session for several malignancies, including prostate cancer, with promising results, providing similar accuracy compared to the combined conventional imaging techniques. The LOCATE trial aims to investigate the application of WB-MRI for re-staging of patients with biochemical relapse (BCR) following external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy in patients with prostate cancer. METHODS/DESIGN The LOCATE trial is a prospective cohort, multi-centre, non-randomised, diagnostic accuracy study comparing WB-MRI and conventional imaging. Eligible patients will undergo WB-MRI in addition to conventional imaging investigations at the time of BCR and will be asked to attend a second WB-MRI exam, 12-months following the initial scan. WB-MRI results will be compared to an enhanced reference standard comprising all the initial, follow-up imaging and non-imaging investigations. The diagnostic performance (sensitivity and specificity analysis) of WB-MRI for re-staging of BCR will be investigated against the enhanced reference standard on a per-patient basis. An economic analysis of WB-MRI compared to conventional imaging pathways will be performed to inform the cost-effectiveness of the WB-MRI imaging pathway. Additionally, an exploratory sub-study will be performed on blood samples and exosome-derived human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER) dimer measurements will be taken to investigate its significance in this cohort. DISCUSSION The LOCATE trial will compare WB-MRI versus the conventional imaging pathway including its cost-effectiveness, therefore informing the most accurate and efficient imaging pathway. TRIAL REGISTRATION LOCATE trial was registered on ClinicalTrial.gov on 18th of October 2016 with registration reference number NCT02935816.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sola Adeleke
- Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, 2nd floor Charles Bell house, 43-45 Foley Street, London, W1W 7TS UK
| | - Arash Latifoltojar
- Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, 2nd floor Charles Bell house, 43-45 Foley Street, London, W1W 7TS UK
| | - Harbir Sidhu
- Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, 2nd floor Charles Bell house, 43-45 Foley Street, London, W1W 7TS UK
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital, London, 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU UK
| | - Myria Galazi
- Molecular Oncology Group, University College London, Cancer Institute, Paul O’Gorman Building, 72 Huntley Street, London, WC1E 6DD UK
| | - Taimur T. Shah
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, 4th floor, 21 University Street, London, WC1E UK
- Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK
- Department of Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Joey Clemente
- Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, 2nd floor Charles Bell house, 43-45 Foley Street, London, W1W 7TS UK
| | - Reena Davda
- Oncology Department, University College London Hospital, 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU UK
| | - Heather Ann Payne
- Oncology Department, University College London Hospital, 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU UK
| | - Manil D. Chouhan
- Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, 2nd floor Charles Bell house, 43-45 Foley Street, London, W1W 7TS UK
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital, London, 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU UK
| | - Maria Lioumi
- Comprehensive Cancer Imaging Centre (CCIC), King’s College, London, New Hunt’s House, Guy’s Campus, London, SE1 1UL UK
| | - Sue Chua
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, The Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Down’s Road, Sutton, SM2 5PT UK
| | - Alex Freeman
- Histopathology Department, University College London Hospital, 4th Floor, Rockefeller Building University Street, London, WC1 6DE UK
| | - Manuel Rodriguez-Justo
- Histopathology Department, University College London Hospital, 4th Floor, Rockefeller Building University Street, London, WC1 6DE UK
| | - Anthony Coolen
- Institute for Mathematical and Molecular Biomedicine, King’s College London, Hodgkin Building, Guy’s Campus, London, SE1 1UL UK
| | - Sachin Vadgama
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, Fitzrovia, London, WC1E 7HB UK
| | - Steve Morris
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, Fitzrovia, London, WC1E 7HB UK
| | - Gary J. Cook
- Department of Cancer Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King’s College London, 4th Floor, Lambeth Wing St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, SE1 7EH UK
| | - Jamshed Bomanji
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospital, 5th Floor Tower, 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU UK
| | - Manit Arya
- Urology Department, University College Hospital, Westmoreland Street, 16-18 Westmoreland Street, London, W1G 8PH UK
| | - Simon Chowdhury
- Oncology Department, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Hospital, Westminster Bridge road, Lambeth, London, SE1 7EH UK
| | - Simon Wan
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospital, 5th Floor Tower, 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU UK
| | - Athar Haroon
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, West Smithfield, London, EC1A 7BE UK
| | - Tony Ng
- Molecular Oncology Group, University College London, Cancer Institute, Paul O’Gorman Building, 72 Huntley Street, London, WC1E 6DD UK
| | - Hashim Uddin Ahmed
- Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK
- Urology Department, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, W2 1NY UK
| | - Shonit Punwani
- Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, 2nd floor Charles Bell house, 43-45 Foley Street, London, W1W 7TS UK
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital, London, 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU UK
| |
Collapse
|