UNLABELLED: We previously demonstrated the ability to detect metastatic prostate cancer using N-[N-[(S)-1,3-dicarboxypropyl]carbamoyl]-4-(18)F-fluorobenzyl-L-cysteine ((18)F-DCFBC), a low-molecular-weight radiotracer that targets the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA). PSMA has been shown to be associated with higher Gleason grade and more aggressive disease. An imaging biomarker able to detect clinically significant high-grade primary prostate cancer reliably would address an unmet clinical need by allowing for risk-adapted patient management. METHODS: We enrolled 13 patients with primary prostate cancer who were imaged with (18)F-DCFBC PET before scheduled prostatectomy, with 12 of these patients also undergoing pelvic prostate MR imaging. Prostate (18)F-DCFBC PET was correlated with MR imaging and histologic and immunohistochemical analysis on a prostate-segment (12 regions) and dominant-lesion basis. There were no incidental extraprostatic findings on PET suggestive of metastatic disease. RESULTS: MR imaging was more sensitive than (18)F-DCFBC PET for detection of primary prostate cancer on a per-segment (sensitivities of up to 0.17 and 0.39 for PET and MR imaging, respectively) and per-dominant-lesion analysis (sensitivities of 0.46 and 0.92 for PET and MR imaging, respectively). However, (18)F-DCFBC PET was more specific than MR imaging by per-segment analysis (specificities of 0.96 and 0.89 for PET and MR imaging for corresponding sensitivity, respectively) and specific for detection of high-grade lesions (Gleason 8 and 9) greater than 1.0 mL in size (4/4 of these patients positive by PET). (18)F-DCFBC uptake in tumors was positively correlated with Gleason score (ρ = 0.64; PSMA expression, ρ = 0.47; and prostate-specific antigen, ρ = 0.52). There was significantly lower (18)F-DCFBC uptake in benign prostatic hypertrophy than primary tumors (median maximum standardized uptake value, 2.2 vs. 3.5; P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Although the sensitivity of (18)F-DCFBC for primary prostate cancer was less than MR imaging, (18)F-DCFBC PET was able to detect the more clinically significant high-grade and larger-volume tumors (Gleason score 8 and 9) with higher specificity than MR imaging. In particular, there was relatively low (18)F-DCFBC PET uptake in benign prostatic hypertrophy lesions, compared with cancer in the prostate, which may allow for more specific detection of primary prostate cancer by (18)F-DCFBC PET. This study demonstrates the utility of PSMA-based PET, which may be used in conjunction with MR imaging to identify clinically significant prostate cancer.
UNLABELLED: We previously demonstrated the ability to detect metastatic prostate cancer using N-[N-[(S)-1,3-dicarboxypropyl]carbamoyl]-4-(18)F-fluorobenzyl-L-cysteine ((18)F-DCFBC), a low-molecular-weight radiotracer that targets the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA). PSMA has been shown to be associated with higher Gleason grade and more aggressive disease. An imaging biomarker able to detect clinically significant high-grade primary prostate cancer reliably would address an unmet clinical need by allowing for risk-adapted patient management. METHODS: We enrolled 13 patients with primary prostate cancer who were imaged with (18)F-DCFBC PET before scheduled prostatectomy, with 12 of these patients also undergoing pelvic prostate MR imaging. Prostate (18)F-DCFBC PET was correlated with MR imaging and histologic and immunohistochemical analysis on a prostate-segment (12 regions) and dominant-lesion basis. There were no incidental extraprostatic findings on PET suggestive of metastatic disease. RESULTS: MR imaging was more sensitive than (18)F-DCFBC PET for detection of primary prostate cancer on a per-segment (sensitivities of up to 0.17 and 0.39 for PET and MR imaging, respectively) and per-dominant-lesion analysis (sensitivities of 0.46 and 0.92 for PET and MR imaging, respectively). However, (18)F-DCFBC PET was more specific than MR imaging by per-segment analysis (specificities of 0.96 and 0.89 for PET and MR imaging for corresponding sensitivity, respectively) and specific for detection of high-grade lesions (Gleason 8 and 9) greater than 1.0 mL in size (4/4 of these patients positive by PET). (18)F-DCFBC uptake in tumors was positively correlated with Gleason score (ρ = 0.64; PSMA expression, ρ = 0.47; and prostate-specific antigen, ρ = 0.52). There was significantly lower (18)F-DCFBC uptake in benign prostatic hypertrophy than primary tumors (median maximum standardized uptake value, 2.2 vs. 3.5; P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Although the sensitivity of (18)F-DCFBC for primary prostate cancer was less than MR imaging, (18)F-DCFBC PET was able to detect the more clinically significant high-grade and larger-volume tumors (Gleason score 8 and 9) with higher specificity than MR imaging. In particular, there was relatively low (18)F-DCFBC PET uptake in benign prostatic hypertrophy lesions, compared with cancer in the prostate, which may allow for more specific detection of primary prostate cancer by (18)F-DCFBC PET. This study demonstrates the utility of PSMA-based PET, which may be used in conjunction with MR imaging to identify clinically significant prostate cancer.
Authors: Jack Cuzick; Mangesh A Thorat; Gerald Andriole; Otis W Brawley; Powel H Brown; Zoran Culig; Rosalind A Eeles; Leslie G Ford; Freddie C Hamdy; Lars Holmberg; Dragan Ilic; Timothy J Key; Carlo La Vecchia; Hans Lilja; Michael Marberger; Frank L Meyskens; Lori M Minasian; Chris Parker; Howard L Parnes; Sven Perner; Harry Rittenhouse; Jack Schalken; Hans-Peter Schmid; Bernd J Schmitz-Dräger; Fritz H Schröder; Arnulf Stenzl; Bertrand Tombal; Timothy J Wilt; Alicja Wolk Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: David Bonekamp; Michael A Jacobs; Riham El-Khouli; Dan Stoianovici; Katarzyna J Macura Journal: Radiographics Date: 2011 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Sandi A Kwee; Gregory P Thibault; Richard S Stack; Marc N Coel; Bungo Furusato; Isabell A Sesterhenn Journal: Mol Imaging Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 4.488
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Esther Mena; Joanna Shih; Peter A Pinto; Maria J Merino; Maria L Lindenberg; Marcelino Bernardo; Yolanda L McKinney; Stephen Adler; Rikard Owenius; Peter L Choyke; Karen A Kurdziel Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-11-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jeffrey S Ross; Christine E Sheehan; Hugh A G Fisher; Ronald P Kaufman; Prabhjot Kaur; Karen Gray; Iain Webb; Gary S Gray; Rebecca Mosher; Bhaskar V S Kallakury Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2003-12-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: C Marchal; M Redondo; M Padilla; J Caballero; I Rodrigo; J García; J Quian; D G Boswick Journal: Histol Histopathol Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: Andrea K Miyahira; Joshua M Lang; Robert B Den; Isla P Garraway; Tamara L Lotan; Ashley E Ross; Tanya Stoyanova; Steve Y Cho; Jonathan W Simons; Kenneth J Pienta; Howard R Soule Journal: Prostate Date: 2015-10-19 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Xing Yang; Ronnie C Mease; Mrudula Pullambhatla; Ala Lisok; Ying Chen; Catherine A Foss; Yuchuan Wang; Hassan Shallal; Hannah Edelman; Adam T Hoye; Giorgio Attardo; Sridhar Nimmagadda; Martin G Pomper Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Xin Li; Steven P Rowe; Jeffrey P Leal; Michael A Gorin; Mohamad E Allaf; Ashley E Ross; Kenneth J Pienta; Martin A Lodge; Martin G Pomper Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-12-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Steven P Rowe; Alexander Drzezga; Bernd Neumaier; Markus Dietlein; Michael A Gorin; Michael R Zalutsky; Martin G Pomper Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Steven P Rowe; Katarzyna J Macura; Anthony Ciarallo; Esther Mena; Amanda Blackford; Rosa Nadal; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Mario A Eisenberger; Michael A Carducci; Ashley E Ross; Philip W Kantoff; Daniel P Holt; Robert F Dannals; Ronnie C Mease; Martin G Pomper; Steve Y Cho Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 10.057