1
|
Dullea A, O'Sullivan L, O'Brien KK, Carrigan M, Ahern S, McGarry M, Harrington P, Walsh KA, Smith SM, Ryan M. Diagnostic Accuracy of 18F-Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA) PET/CT Radiotracers in Staging and Restaging of Patients With High-Risk Prostate Cancer or Biochemical Recurrence: An Overview of Reviews. Semin Nucl Med 2024:S0001-2998(24)00044-8. [PMID: 38906759 DOI: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2024.05.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/16/2024] [Accepted: 05/03/2024] [Indexed: 06/23/2024]
Abstract
The aim of this overview was to consolidate existing evidence syntheses and provide a comprehensive overview of the evidence for 18F-prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT in the staging of high-risk prostate cancer and restaging after biochemical recurrence. An overview of reviews was performed and reported in line with the preferred reporting items for overview of reviews (PRIOR) statement and synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) reporting guidelines. A comprehensive database and grey literature search were conducted up to July 18, 2023. Systematic reviews were assessed using the risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluations (GRADE). 11 systematic reviews were identified; 10 were at high or unclear risk of bias. Evidence reported on a per-patient, per-lymph node, and per-lesion basis for sensitivity, specificity and overall accuracy was identified. There was a lack of data on dose, adverse events and evidence directly comparing 18F-PSMA PET/CT to other imaging modalities. Evidence with moderate to very low certainty indicated high sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 18F-PSMA PET/CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer and biochemical recurrence. There was considerably lower certainty evidence and greater variability in effect estimates for outcomes for the combined intermediate/high-risk cohort. While evidence gaps remain for some outcomes, and most systematic reviews were at high or unclear risk of bias, the current evidence base is broadly supportive of 18F-PSMA PET/CT imaging in the staging and restaging of patients with high-risk prostate cancer and biochemical recurrence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew Dullea
- Discipline of Public Health & Primary Care, School of Medicine, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland; Health Technology Assessment Directorate, Health Information and Quality Authority, Cork, Ireland.
| | - Lydia O'Sullivan
- Health Technology Assessment Directorate, Health Information and Quality Authority, Cork, Ireland; Health Research Board-Trials Methodology Research Network, College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Galway, County Galway, Galway, Ireland
| | - Kirsty K O'Brien
- Health Technology Assessment Directorate, Health Information and Quality Authority, Cork, Ireland
| | - Marie Carrigan
- Health Technology Assessment Directorate, Health Information and Quality Authority, Cork, Ireland
| | - Susan Ahern
- Health Technology Assessment Directorate, Health Information and Quality Authority, Cork, Ireland
| | - Maeve McGarry
- Health Technology Assessment Directorate, Health Information and Quality Authority, Cork, Ireland
| | - Patricia Harrington
- Health Technology Assessment Directorate, Health Information and Quality Authority, Cork, Ireland
| | - Kieran A Walsh
- Health Technology Assessment Directorate, Health Information and Quality Authority, Cork, Ireland; School of Pharmacy, University College Cork, County Cork, Cork, Ireland
| | - Susan M Smith
- Discipline of Public Health & Primary Care, School of Medicine, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Máirín Ryan
- Health Technology Assessment Directorate, Health Information and Quality Authority, Cork, Ireland; Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ma J, Yang Q, Ye X, Xu W, Chang Y, Chen R, Wang Y, Luo M, Lou Y, Yang X, Li D, Xu Y, He W, Cai M, Cao W, Ju G, Yin L, Wang J, Ren J, Ma Z, Zuo C, Ren S. Head-to-head comparison of prostate-specific membrane antigen PET and multiparametric MRI in the diagnosis of pretreatment patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2024; 34:4017-4037. [PMID: 37981590 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-10436-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/26/2023] [Revised: 09/05/2023] [Accepted: 09/19/2023] [Indexed: 11/21/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To compare prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in the diagnosis of pretreatment prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS Pubmed, Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies published before June 22, 2022. We assessed risk of bias and applicability by using QUADAS-2 tool. Data synthesis was performed with Stata 17.0 software, using the "midas" and "meqrlogit" packages. RESULTS We included 29 articles focusing on primary cancer detection, 18 articles about primary staging, and two articles containing them both. For PSMA PET versus mpMRI in primary PCa detection, sensitivities and specificities in the per-patient analysis were 0.90 and 0.84 (p<0.0001), and 0.66 and 0.60 (p <0.0001), and in the per-lesion analysis they were 0.79 and 0.78 (p <0.0001), and 0.84 and 0.82 (p <0.0001). For the per-patient analysis of PSMA PET versus mpMRI in primary staging, sensitivities and specificities in extracapsular extension detection were 0.59 and 0.66 (p =0.005), and 0.79 and 0.76 (p =0.0074), and in seminal vesicle infiltration (SVI) detection they were 0.51 and 0.60 (p =0.0008), and 0.93 and 0.96 (p =0.0092). For PSMA PET versus mpMRI in lymph node metastasis (LNM) detection, sensitivities and specificities in the per-patient analysis were 0.68 and 0.46 (p <0.0001), and 0.91 and 0.90 (p =0.81), and in the per-lesion analysis they were 0.67 and 0.36 (p <0.0001), and 0.99 and 0.99 (p =0.18). CONCLUSION PSMA PET has higher diagnostic value than mpMRI in the detection of primary PCa. Regarding the primary staging, mpMRI has potential advantages in SVI detection, while PSMA PET has relative advantages in LNM detection. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT The integration of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET into the diagnostic pathway may be helpful for improving the accuracy of prostate cancer detection. However, further studies are needed to address the cost implications and evaluate its utility in specific patient populations or clinical scenarios. Moreover, we recommend the combination of PSMA PET and mpMRI for cancer staging. KEY POINTS • Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET has higher sensitivity and specificity for primary tumor detection in prostate cancer compared to multiparametric MRI. • Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET also has significantly better sensitivity and specificity for lymph node metastases of prostate cancer compared to multiparametric MRI. • Multiparametric MRI has better accuracy for extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle infiltration compared to ate-specific membrane antigen PET.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jianglei Ma
- Department of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China
| | - Qinqin Yang
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China
| | - Xiaofei Ye
- Department of Health Statistics, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China
| | - Weidong Xu
- Department of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China
| | - Yifan Chang
- Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China
| | - Rui Chen
- Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China
| | - Ye Wang
- Department of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China
| | - Mengting Luo
- College of Basic Medical Sciences, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China
| | - Yihaoyun Lou
- Department of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China
| | - Xuming Yang
- Department of Urology, Hengyang Central Hospital, Hengyang, 421001, Hu'nan, China
| | - Duocai Li
- Department of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China
| | - Yusi Xu
- Department of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China
| | - Wei He
- Department of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China
| | - Minglei Cai
- Department of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China
| | - Wanli Cao
- Department of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China
| | - Guanqun Ju
- Department of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China
| | - Lei Yin
- Department of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China
| | - Junkai Wang
- Department of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China
| | - Jizhong Ren
- Department of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China
| | - Zifang Ma
- Department of Urology, Hengyang Central Hospital, Hengyang, 421001, Hu'nan, China.
| | - Changjing Zuo
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China.
| | - Shancheng Ren
- Department of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Jiang Z, Guo J, Hu L, Yang S, Meng B, Tang Q. Diagnostic performance of 18F‑DCFPyL PET vs. 68Ga‑PSMA PET/CT in patients with suspected prostate cancer: A systemic review and meta‑analysis. Oncol Lett 2024; 27:188. [PMID: 38486944 PMCID: PMC10938285 DOI: 10.3892/ol.2024.14321] [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: 10/26/2023] [Accepted: 02/13/2024] [Indexed: 03/17/2024] Open
Abstract
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the diagnostic performance of 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET)/CT was compared with that of 18F-DCFPyL PET for patients with suspected prostate cancer (PCa). Up to September 2023, the PubMed, Embase and Web of Science databases were thoroughly searched for relevant papers. Studies examining the diagnostic performance of 18F-DCFPyL PET and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in patients with suspected PCa were included in the present review. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Performance Studies-2 tool was used to rate the diagnostic performance of each study. The diagnostic performance of 18F-DCFPyL PET and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT for primary PCa was examined by 13 studies included, comprising 1,178 patients. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of 18F-DCFPyL PET were 0.92 (95% CI, 0.85-0.96) and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.08-0.96), respectively. For 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.96 (95% CI, 0.88-0.99) and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.57-0.82), respectively. 18F-DCFPyL PET and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT both had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.89-0.94). In addition, the Fagan nomogram revealed that the post-test probabilities for 18F-DCFPyL PET and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT could rise to 69 and 77% when the pre-test probability was set at 50%. In conclusion, a comparable diagnostic performance for patients with suspected PCa was determined for 18F-DCFPyL PET and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT. However, it is crucial to keep in mind that the findings of the present meta-analysis come from investigations with modest sample sizes. Therefore, more extensive research is required to obtain more solid data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhibing Jiang
- Department of Clinical Medicine, Medical College, Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, Hunan 410208, P.R. China
| | - Jinjing Guo
- Department of Clinical Medicine, Medical College, Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, Hunan 410208, P.R. China
| | - Liang Hu
- Department of Clinical Medicine, Medical College, Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, Hunan 410208, P.R. China
| | - Siyu Yang
- Department of Clinical Medicine, Medical College, Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, Hunan 410208, P.R. China
| | - Bin Meng
- Department of Clinical Medicine, Medical College, Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, Hunan 410208, P.R. China
| | - Qun Tang
- Department of Clinical Medicine, Medical College, Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, Hunan 410208, P.R. China
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Inoue T, Shin T. Current magnetic resonance imaging-based diagnostic strategies for prostate cancer. Int J Urol 2023; 30:1078-1086. [PMID: 37592819 DOI: 10.1111/iju.15281] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2023] [Accepted: 08/02/2023] [Indexed: 08/19/2023]
Abstract
Recent developments in multiparametric MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy have made it possible to detect clinically significant cancers more accurately and efficiently than ever before. Furthermore, software that enables easy MRI/US image fusion has been developed and is already available on the market, and this has provided a tailwind for the spread of MRI-based prostate cancer diagnostic strategies. Such precise diagnosis of prostate cancer localization is essential for highly accurate focal therapy. In addition, a recent large-scale study applying MRI to community screening for prostate cancer has reported its usefulness. By contrast, concerns about overdiagnosis and overtreatment, the existence of inter-reader variability in MRI diagnosis, and issues with current MRI-targeted biopsy have emerged. In this article, we review the development of multiparametric MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy to date and the current issues and discuss future directions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Toru Inoue
- Department of Urology, Oita University Faculty of Medicine, Oita, Japan
| | - Toshitaka Shin
- Department of Urology, Oita University Faculty of Medicine, Oita, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Wang YF, Lo CY, Chen LY, Chang CW, Huang YT, Huang YY, Huang YH. Comparing the Detection Performance Between Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen PET/CT in Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin Nucl Med 2023; 48:e321-e331. [PMID: 37145456 DOI: 10.1097/rlu.0000000000004646] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/06/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) has been promoted as an auxiliary diagnostic tool for prostate biopsy. However, prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) including 68 Ga-PSMA-11, 18 F-DCFPyL, and 18 F-PSMA-1007 applied PET/CT imaging was an emerging diagnostic tool in prostate cancer patients for staging or posttreatment follow-up, even early detecting. Many studies have used PSMA PET for comparison with mpMRI to test the diagnostic ability for early prostate cancer. Unfortunately, these studies have shown conflicting results. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the differences in diagnostic performance between PSMA PET and mpMRI for detecting and T staging localized prostatic tumors. METHODS This meta-analysis involved a systematic literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases. The pooling sensitivity and specificity of PSMA and mpMRI verified by pathological analysis were calculated and used to compare the differences between the 2 imaging tools. RESULTS Overall, 39 studies were included (3630 patients in total) from 2016 to 2022 in the current meta-analysis and found that the pooling sensitivity values for localized prostatic tumors and T staging T3a and T3b of PSMA PET were 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-0.86), 0.61 (95% CI, 0.39-0.79), and 0.62 (95% CI, 0.46-0.76), respectively, whereas those of mpMRI were found to be 0.84 (95% 0.78-0.89), 0.67 (95% CI, 0.52-0.80), and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.45-0.73), respectively, without significant differences ( P > 0.05). However, in a subgroup analysis of radiotracer, the pooling sensitivity of 18 F-DCFPyL PET was higher than mpMRI (relative risk, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03-1.17; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS This meta-analysis found that whereas 18 F-DCFPyL PET was superior to mpMRI at detecting localized prostatic tumors, the detection performance of PSMA PET for localized prostatic tumors and T staging was comparable to that of mpMRI.
Collapse
|
6
|
Pang W, Cheng S, Du Z, Du S. The diagnostic performance of 18F-DCFPyL PET in patients with suspected prostate cancer: A systemic review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol 2023; 13:1145759. [PMID: 36959787 PMCID: PMC10030046 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1145759] [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: 01/16/2023] [Accepted: 02/15/2023] [Indexed: 03/09/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction Our meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of 18F-DCFPyL prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET in patients with suspected prostate cancer. Methods We searched for articles that evaluate the diagnostic value of 18F-DCFPyL PSMA PET in patients with suspected prostate cancer in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science until 1 August 2022. Using the QUADAS-2 instrument, two researchers independently assessed the effectiveness of the studies that were included. The four-grid table data were analyzed by Meta-disc1.4 and Stata 16.0 software. The heterogeneity of each study was tested. Results A total of five studies with 258 patients were included, and the pooled sensitivity and specificity of 18F-DCFPyL PSMA PET for primary prostate cancer were 0.92 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85-0.96) and 0.59 (95% CI: 0.08-0.96), respectively. 18F-DCFPyL PSMA PET was successful in detecting primary prostate cancer, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.89-0.94). Conclusions 18F-DCFPyL PSMA PET has a strong predictive value for primary prostate cancer and is an effective method for the non-invasive diagnosis of prostate cancer. More prospective articles were needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wenyang Pang
- Department of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, Sichuan, China
| | - Shulin Cheng
- Department of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, Sichuan, China
| | - Zhongbo Du
- Department of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, Sichuan, China
| | - Shuang Du
- Department of Dermatology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, Sichuan, China
- *Correspondence: Shuang Du,
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Voter AF, Werner RA, Pienta KJ, Gorin MA, Pomper MG, Solnes LB, Rowe SP. Piflufolastat F-18 ( 18F-DCFPyL) for PSMA PET imaging in prostate cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2022; 22:681-694. [DOI: 10.1080/14737140.2022.2081155] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew F. Voter
- The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
- Transitional Year Residency Program, Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center, Advocate Aurora Health, Milwaukee, WI, USA
| | - Rudolf A. Werner
- The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| | - Kenneth J. Pienta
- The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
- Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Michael A. Gorin
- Urology Associates and UPMC Western Maryland, Cumberland, MD, USA
- Department of Urology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Martin G. Pomper
- The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
- The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
- Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Lilja B. Solnes
- The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
- Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Steven P. Rowe
- The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
- The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
- Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|