1
|
Light A, Lazic S, Houghton K, Bayne M, Connor MJ, Tam H, Ahmed HU, Shah TT, Barwick TD. Diagnostic Performance of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT Versus Multiparametric MRI for Detection of Intraprostatic Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer. J Nucl Med 2024; 65:379-385. [PMID: 38212074 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.123.266527] [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: 08/10/2023] [Revised: 10/04/2023] [Accepted: 10/04/2023] [Indexed: 01/13/2024] Open
Abstract
For men with prostate cancer who develop biochemical failure after radiotherapy, European guidelines recommend reimaging with 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). However, the accuracy of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT for detecting intraprostatic recurrences is unclear, both with and without mpMRI. Methods: A single-center retrospective study of a series of patients investigated for radiorecurrence between 2016 and 2022 is described. All patients underwent 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT, mpMRI, and prostate biopsy. PET/CT images were interpreted independently by 2 expert readers masked to other imaging and clinical data. The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy of PET/CT versus mpMRI and of PET/CT with mpMRI together versus mpMRI alone. The secondary outcome was the proportion of cancers missed by mpMRI but detected by PET/CT. Diagnostic accuracy analysis was performed at the prostate hemigland level using cluster bootstrapping. Results: Thirty-five men (70 hemiglands) were included. Cancer was confirmed by biopsy in 43 of 70 hemiglands (61%). PET/CT sensitivity and negative predictive values (NPVs) were 0.89 (95% CI, 0.78-0.98) and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.62-0.95), respectively, which were not significantly different from results by MRI (sensitivity of 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.83; P = 0.1) (NPV of 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41-0.75; P = 0.07). Specificity and positive predictive values were not significantly different. When PET/CT and MRI were used together, the sensitivity was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.92-1.00) and NPV was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.75-1.00), both significantly higher than MRI alone (P = 0.003 and P < 0.001, respectively). Specificity and positive predictive values remained not significantly different. MRI missed 12 of 43 cancers (28%; 95% CI, 17%-43%), of which 11 of 12 (92%; 95% CI, 62%-100%) were detected by PET/CT. Conclusion: For detecting intraprostatic radiorecurrence, 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT has high sensitivity that is not significantly different from mpMRI. When 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT and mpMRI were used together, the results conferred a significantly greater sensitivity and NPV than with mpMRI alone. 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT may therefore be a useful tool in the diagnosis of localized radiorecurrence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander Light
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Stefan Lazic
- Department of Imaging, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; and
| | - Kate Houghton
- Department of Imaging, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; and
| | - Max Bayne
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Martin J Connor
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Henry Tam
- Department of Imaging, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; and
| | - Hashim U Ahmed
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Taimur T Shah
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Tara D Barwick
- Department of Imaging, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; and
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Adams ES, Deivasigamani S, Mottaghi M, Huang J, Gupta RT, Polascik TJ. Evaluation of Recurrent Disease after Radiation Therapy for Patients Considering Local Salvage Therapy: Past vs. Contemporary Management. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:5883. [PMID: 38136427 PMCID: PMC10741753 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15245883] [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: 11/10/2023] [Revised: 12/14/2023] [Accepted: 12/14/2023] [Indexed: 12/24/2023] Open
Abstract
Recurrent prostate cancer after primary treatment with radiation therapy is a common problem. Patients with localized recurrence may benefit from salvage therapy, but careful patient selection is crucial because not all patients will benefit from local salvage therapy, and salvage therapy has increased morbidity compared to primary treatments for prostate cancer. This review aims to provide an overview of the evaluation of patients with recurrent disease after radiation therapy and how it is continuing to evolve with increasing data on outcomes, as well as improving technologies and techniques. Our enhanced understanding of treatment outcomes and risk stratification has influenced the identification of patients who may benefit from local salvage treatment. Advances in imaging and biopsy techniques have enhanced the accuracy of locating the recurrence, which affects treatment decisions. Additionally, the growing interest in image-targeted ablative therapies that have less morbidity and complications than whole-gland therapies for suitable patients influences the evaluation process for those considering focal salvage therapy. Although significant changes have been made in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with recurrent disease after radiation therapy, it remains unclear whether these changes will ultimately improve patient outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eric S. Adams
- Department of Urology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| | | | - Mahdi Mottaghi
- Section of Urology, Department of Surgery, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| | - Jiaoti Huang
- Department of Pathology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| | - Rajan T. Gupta
- Department of Urology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
- Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| | - Thomas J. Polascik
- Department of Urology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
- Section of Urology, Department of Surgery, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
- Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Francolini G, Carnevale MG, Di Cataldo V, Loi M, Detti B, Orsatti C, Caprara L, Bertini N, Lorenzetti V, Olmetto E, Becherini C, Visani L, Salvestrini V, Simontacchi G, Greto D, Bonomo P, Doro R, Masi L, Desideri I, Meattini I, Serni S, Livi L. Stereotactic reirradiation with Cyberknife R for locally recurrent prostate cancer, long-term toxicity and clinical outcomes from a monocentric cohort. LA RADIOLOGIA MEDICA 2023; 128:1580-1588. [PMID: 37728816 DOI: 10.1007/s11547-023-01721-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/13/2023] [Accepted: 09/04/2023] [Indexed: 09/21/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Up to 47% of patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa) treated with radiotherapy (EBRT) eventually develop local recurrence. To date, no clear consensus exists on optimal management. A growing body of interest supports the use of stereotaxic re-irradiation (rSBRT), with promising oncological outcomes and low toxicity profile. We collected a single-center case series of locally recurrent PCa who underwent re-irradiation after a previous course of postoperative or definitive radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS Data from 101 patients treated at our institution for locally recurrent PCa from June 2012 to June 2021 were retrospectively collected. Patients underwent rSBRT with CyberKnife system (Accuray Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA), delivered to intraprostatic or macroscopic recurrences within the prostate bed, for a total dose of 30 Gy in 5 fractions. RESULTS All patients received prior EBRT. The median EQD2 total dose was 75.0 Gy (range, 60-80 Gy). Thirty-two (32%) patients were receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) after prior biochemical recurrence. After a median follow-up of 57.8 months, BR occurred in 55 patients (54.5%), with a median BR-free survival (BRFS) of 40.4 months (95% C.I. 34.3-58.3). Thirty-two patients (31.7%) developed metastatic disease, with a median metastasis-free survival (MFS) not reached. PSA ≥ 2.5 ng/ml and ADT were associated with worst BRFS (26.06 vs. 39.3 months, p = 0.03 and 22.7 vs. 27 months, p = 0.01, respectively). Castration-resistant status and ADT were found to be predictive of worst MFS (34.1 vs. 50.5 months, p = 0.02 and 33.5 vs. 53.1 months, p = 0.002, respectively). Concomitant ADT was confirmed as an independent factor for MFS (HR 4.8, 95% CI 1.5-10.6, p = 0.007). No grade > /2 adverse were recorded. CONCLUSIONS After almost 5 years of follow-up, with a median BRFS of 40.4 months and no grade ≥ 2 AEs, CyberknifeR rSBRT proved effective and safe in a cohort of 101 patients affected by locally recurrent PCa.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giulio Francolini
- Radiation Oncology, Azienda Universitaria Ospedaliera Careggi, Largo Brambilla 1, 50134, Florence, Italy.
| | - Maria Grazia Carnevale
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences Mario Serio, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Vanessa Di Cataldo
- Radiation Oncology, Azienda Universitaria Ospedaliera Careggi, Largo Brambilla 1, 50134, Florence, Italy
| | - Mauro Loi
- Radiation Oncology, Azienda Universitaria Ospedaliera Careggi, Largo Brambilla 1, 50134, Florence, Italy
| | - Beatrice Detti
- Radiation Oncology, Azienda Universitaria Ospedaliera Careggi, Largo Brambilla 1, 50134, Florence, Italy
| | - Carolina Orsatti
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences Mario Serio, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Luisa Caprara
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences Mario Serio, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Niccolò Bertini
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences Mario Serio, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Victoria Lorenzetti
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences Mario Serio, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Emanuela Olmetto
- Radiation Oncology, Azienda Universitaria Ospedaliera Careggi, Largo Brambilla 1, 50134, Florence, Italy
| | - Carlotta Becherini
- Radiation Oncology, Azienda Universitaria Ospedaliera Careggi, Largo Brambilla 1, 50134, Florence, Italy
| | - Luca Visani
- CyberKnife Center, Istituto Fiorentino Di Cura E Assistenza (IFCA), Florence, Italy
| | - Viola Salvestrini
- CyberKnife Center, Istituto Fiorentino Di Cura E Assistenza (IFCA), Florence, Italy
| | - Gabriele Simontacchi
- Radiation Oncology, Azienda Universitaria Ospedaliera Careggi, Largo Brambilla 1, 50134, Florence, Italy
| | - Daniela Greto
- Radiation Oncology, Azienda Universitaria Ospedaliera Careggi, Largo Brambilla 1, 50134, Florence, Italy
| | - Pierluigi Bonomo
- Radiation Oncology, Azienda Universitaria Ospedaliera Careggi, Largo Brambilla 1, 50134, Florence, Italy
| | - Raffaela Doro
- CyberKnife Center, Istituto Fiorentino Di Cura E Assistenza (IFCA), Florence, Italy
| | - Laura Masi
- CyberKnife Center, Istituto Fiorentino Di Cura E Assistenza (IFCA), Florence, Italy
| | - Isacco Desideri
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences Mario Serio, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Icro Meattini
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences Mario Serio, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Sergio Serni
- Unit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, 50100, Florence, Italy
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, 50100, Florence, Italy
| | - Lorenzo Livi
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences Mario Serio, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Light A, Peters M, Reddy D, Kanthabalan A, Otieno M, Pavlou M, Omar R, Adeleke S, Giganti F, Brew-Graves C, Williams NR, Emara A, Haroon A, Latifoltojar A, Sidhu H, Freeman A, Orczyk C, Nikapota A, Dudderidge T, Hindley RG, Virdi J, Arya M, Payne H, Mitra AV, Bomanji J, Winkler M, Horan G, Moore C, Emberton M, Punwani S, Ahmed HU, Shah TT. External validation of a risk model predicting failure of salvage focal ablation for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2023; 132:520-530. [PMID: 37385981 PMCID: PMC10615865 DOI: 10.1111/bju.16102] [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] [Indexed: 07/01/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To externally validate a published model predicting failure within 2 years after salvage focal ablation in men with localised radiorecurrent prostate cancer using a prospective, UK multicentre dataset. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with biopsy-confirmed ≤T3bN0M0 cancer after previous external beam radiotherapy or brachytherapy were included from the FOcal RECurrent Assessment and Salvage Treatment (FORECAST) trial (NCT01883128; 2014-2018; six centres), and from the high-intensity focussed ultrasound (HIFU) Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment (HEAT) and International Cryotherapy Evaluation (ICE) UK-based registries (2006-2022; nine centres). Eligible patients underwent either salvage focal HIFU or cryotherapy, with the choice based predominantly on anatomical factors. Per the original multivariable Cox regression model, the predicted outcome was a composite failure outcome. Model performance was assessed at 2 years post-salvage with discrimination (concordance index [C-index]), calibration (calibration curve and slope), and decision curve analysis. For the latter, two clinically-reasonable risk threshold ranges of 0.14-0.52 and 0.26-0.36 were considered, corresponding to previously published pooled 2-year recurrence-free survival rates for salvage local treatments. RESULTS A total of 168 patients were included, of whom 84/168 (50%) experienced the primary outcome in all follow-ups, and 72/168 (43%) within 2 years. The C-index was 0.65 (95% confidence interval 0.58-0.71). On graphical inspection, there was close agreement between predicted and observed failure. The calibration slope was 1.01. In decision curve analysis, there was incremental net benefit vs a 'treat all' strategy at risk thresholds of ≥0.23. The net benefit was therefore higher across the majority of the 0.14-0.52 risk threshold range, and all of the 0.26-0.36 range. CONCLUSION In external validation using prospective, multicentre data, this model demonstrated modest discrimination but good calibration and clinical utility for predicting failure of salvage focal ablation within 2 years. This model could be reasonably used to improve selection of appropriate treatment candidates for salvage focal ablation, and its use should be considered when discussing salvage options with patients. Further validation in larger, international cohorts with longer follow-up is recommended.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander Light
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London UK
| | - Max Peters
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Deepika Reddy
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London UK
| | - Abi Kanthabalan
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Marjorie Otieno
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Menelaos Pavlou
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Rumana Omar
- Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Sola Adeleke
- Department of Oncology, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK
| | - Francesco Giganti
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Chris Brew-Graves
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, UK
| | - Norman R. Williams
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Amr Emara
- Department of Urology, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK
| | - Athar Haroon
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Arash Latifoltojar
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, UK
- Department of Radiology, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Surrey, UK
| | - Harbir Sidhu
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, UK
| | - Alex Freeman
- Department of Histopathology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Clement Orczyk
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Ashok Nikapota
- Sussex Cancer Centre, Royal Sussex County Hospital, University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, Brighton, UK
| | - Tim Dudderidge
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Richard G. Hindley
- Department of Urology, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK
| | - Jaspal Virdi
- Department of Urology, The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, Harlow, UK
| | - Manit Arya
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London UK
| | - Heather Payne
- Department of Histopathology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Anita V. Mitra
- Department of Oncology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Jamshed Bomanji
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Mathias Winkler
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London UK
| | - Gail Horan
- Department of Oncology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital King’s Lynn NHS Foundation Trust, King's Lynn, UK
| | - Caroline Moore
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Mark Emberton
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Urology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Shonit Punwani
- Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Division of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University College London, UK
| | - Hashim U. Ahmed
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London UK
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - Taimur T. Shah
- Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
- Imperial Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London UK
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Rednam N, Kundra V. Hybrid magnetic resonance and PET imaging for prostate cancer recurrence. Curr Opin Oncol 2023; 35:231-238. [PMID: 36966496 DOI: 10.1097/cco.0000000000000932] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/27/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW Recurrence post definitive local therapy by prostatectomy or radiation therapy is often detected via rise in serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels; however, PSA rise does not localize the disease. Distinguishing local versus distant recurrence guides whether to choose subsequent local versus systemic therapy. The purpose of this article is to review imaging for prostate cancer recurrence post local therapy. RECENT FINDINGS Among imaging modalities, multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) is commonly used to assess for local recurrence. New radiopharmaceuticals target prostate cancer cells and enable whole-body imaging. These tend to be more sensitive for lymph node metastases than MRI or computed tomography (CT) and for bone lesions than bone scan at lower PSA levels but can be limited for local prostate cancer recurrence. Given greater soft tissue contrast, similar criteria for lymph nodes, and greater sensitivity for prostate bone metastases, MRI is advantageous to CT. MRI of the whole body and mpMRI are now feasible within a reasonable time frame and complementary to PET imaging, enabling whole-body and pelvis-focused PET-MRI, which should be advantageous in the setting of recurrent prostate cancer. SUMMARY Hybrid PET-MRI with prostate cancer targeted radiopharmaceuticals and whole body with local multiparametric MRI can be complementary for detecting local and distant recurrence to guide treatment planning.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nikita Rednam
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Maryland Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Glemser PA, Rotkopf LT, Ziener CH, Beuthien-Baumann B, Weru V, Kopp-Schneider A, Schlemmer HP, Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Sachpekidis C. Hybrid imaging with [ 68Ga]PSMA-11 PET-CT and PET-MRI in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. Cancer Imaging 2022; 22:53. [PMID: 36138437 PMCID: PMC9502876 DOI: 10.1186/s40644-022-00489-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/14/2022] [Accepted: 09/06/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
AIM To compare [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET-CT, [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET-MRI and MRI in a cohort of prostate cancer (PCa) patients in biochemical recurrence after initial curative therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS Fifty-three patients with biochemically recurrent PCa underwent whole-body [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET-CT 1 hour post-injection (p.i.) followed by [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET-MRI 2.5 hours p.i., including a multiparametric MRI pelvic protocol examination. Imaging data analysis consisted of visual (qualitative) evaluation of the PET-CT, PET-MRI and MRI scans, as well as semi-quantitative and quantitative analyses of the PET and MRI data, including calculation of the parameters standardized uptake value (SUV) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) derived from the PCa lesions. Association analysis was performed between imaging and clinical data, including PSA level and Gleason score. The results were considered significant for p-values less than 0.05 (p < 0.05). RESULTS The hybrid imaging modalities [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET-CT and PET-MRI were positive in more patients than MRI alone. In particular, PET-CT detected lesions suggestive of PCa relapse in 34/53 (64.2%), PET-MRI in 36/53 (67.9%) and MRI in 23/53 patients (43.4%). While no significant differences in lesion detection rate were observed between PET-CT and PET-MRI, the latter was particularly efficient in detection of local recurrences in the prostate bed mainly due to the contribution of the MRI part of the modality. Association analysis revealed a statistically significant increase in the probability of a positive scan with increasing PSA levels for all imaging modalities. Accordingly, there was no significant association between scan positivity rate and Gleason score for any imaging modality. No significant correlation was observed between SUV and ADC values in lymph node metastases. CONCLUSION [68Ga]PSMA-11 PET-CT and PET-MRI provide equally good detection rates for PCa recurrence, both outperforming stand-alone MRI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P A Glemser
- Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - L T Rotkopf
- Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Medical Faculty, Ruprecht-Karls-University Heidelberg, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - C H Ziener
- Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - B Beuthien-Baumann
- Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - V Weru
- Department of Biostatistics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - A Kopp-Schneider
- Department of Biostatistics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - H P Schlemmer
- Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - A Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69210, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - C Sachpekidis
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69210, Heidelberg, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Maitre P, Sood S, Pathare P, Krishnatry R, Agarwal A, Rangarajan V, Murthy V. Timing of Ga68-PSMA PETCT and patterns of recurrence after prostate radiotherapy: Implications for potential salvage. Radiother Oncol 2022; 169:71-76. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.02.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/24/2022] [Revised: 02/12/2022] [Accepted: 02/14/2022] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
|