Tobias Maurer1, Jürgen E Gschwend2, Isabel Rauscher3, Michael Souvatzoglou3, Bernhard Haller4, Gregor Weirich5, Hans-Jürgen Wester6, Matthias Heck2, Hubert Kübler2, Ambros J Beer7, Markus Schwaiger3, Matthias Eiber3. 1. Department of Urology, Technische Universität München, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany. Electronic address: t.maurer@tum.de. 2. Department of Urology, Technische Universität München, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technische Universität München, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany. 4. Institute of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology, Technische Universität München, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany. 5. Institute of Pathology, Technische Universität München, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany. 6. Department of Pharmaceutical Radiochemistry, Technische Universität München, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany. 7. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technische Universität München, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany; Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Current standard imaging techniques are insufficient to reliably detect lymph node metastases in prostate cancer. Recently ligands of PSMA (prostate specific membrane antigen) were introduced in PET (positron emission tomography) of prostate cancer. Thus the aims of this retrospective analysis were to 1) investigate the diagnostic efficacy of (68)Ga-PSMA-PET imaging for lymph node staging in patients with prostate cancer scheduled for radical prostatectomy and 2) compare it to morphological imaging (computerized tomography and magnetic resonance tomography) with histopathological evaluation as the standard of reference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 130 patients with intermediate to high risk prostate cancer were staged with (68)Ga-PSMA-PET/magnetic resonance tomography or PET/computerized tomography from December 2012 to November 2014 before radical prostatectomy and template pelvic lymph node dissection. Histopathological findings of resected tissue were statistically correlated with the results of (68)Ga-PSMA-PET and morphological imaging in a patient and template based manner. RESULTS: Lymph node metastases were found in 41 of 130 patients (31.5%). On patient based analysis the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of (68)Ga-PSMA-PET were 65.9%, 98.9% and 88.5%, and those of morphological imaging were 43.9%, 85.4% and 72.3%, respectively. Of 734 dissected lymph node templates 117 (15.9%) showed metastases. On template based analysis the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of (68)Ga-PSMA-PET were 68.3%, 99.1% and 95.2%, and those of morphological imaging were 27.3%, 97.1% and 87.6%, respectively. On ROC analysis (68)Ga-PSMA-PET performed significantly better than morphological imaging alone on patient and template based analyses (p = 0.002 and <0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with intermediate to high risk prostate cancer preoperative lymph node staging with (68)Ga-PSMA-PET proved to be superior to standard routine imaging. Thus it has the potential to replace current standard imaging for this indication if confirmed by prospective studies.
PURPOSE: Current standard imaging techniques are insufficient to reliably detect lymph node metastases in prostate cancer. Recently ligands of PSMA (prostate specific membrane antigen) were introduced in PET (positron emission tomography) of prostate cancer. Thus the aims of this retrospective analysis were to 1) investigate the diagnostic efficacy of (68)Ga-PSMA-PET imaging for lymph node staging in patients with prostate cancer scheduled for radical prostatectomy and 2) compare it to morphological imaging (computerized tomography and magnetic resonance tomography) with histopathological evaluation as the standard of reference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 130 patients with intermediate to high risk prostate cancer were staged with (68)Ga-PSMA-PET/magnetic resonance tomography or PET/computerized tomography from December 2012 to November 2014 before radical prostatectomy and template pelvic lymph node dissection. Histopathological findings of resected tissue were statistically correlated with the results of (68)Ga-PSMA-PET and morphological imaging in a patient and template based manner. RESULTS: Lymph node metastases were found in 41 of 130 patients (31.5%). On patient based analysis the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of (68)Ga-PSMA-PET were 65.9%, 98.9% and 88.5%, and those of morphological imaging were 43.9%, 85.4% and 72.3%, respectively. Of 734 dissected lymph node templates 117 (15.9%) showed metastases. On template based analysis the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of (68)Ga-PSMA-PET were 68.3%, 99.1% and 95.2%, and those of morphological imaging were 27.3%, 97.1% and 87.6%, respectively. On ROC analysis (68)Ga-PSMA-PET performed significantly better than morphological imaging alone on patient and template based analyses (p = 0.002 and <0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with intermediate to high risk prostate cancer preoperative lymph node staging with (68)Ga-PSMA-PET proved to be superior to standard routine imaging. Thus it has the potential to replace current standard imaging for this indication if confirmed by prospective studies.
Authors: Channing J Paller; Danilo Piana; James R Eshleman; Stacy Riel; Samuel R Denmeade; Pedro Isaacsson Velho; Steven P Rowe; Martin G Pomper; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Jun Luo; Mario A Eisenberger Journal: Prostate Date: 2019-07-30 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Thomas A Hope; Jeremy Z Goodman; Isabel E Allen; Jeremie Calais; Wolfgang P Fendler; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Anna Katharina Seitz; Isabel Rauscher; Bernhard Haller; Markus Krönke; Sophia Luther; Matthias M Heck; Thomas Horn; Jürgen E Gschwend; Markus Schwaiger; Matthias Eiber; Tobias Maurer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Christian Daniel Fankhauser; Cédric Poyet; Stephanie G C Kroeze; Benedikt Kranzbühler; Helena I Garcia Schüler; Matthias Guckenberger; Philipp A Kaufmann; Thomas Hermanns; Irene A Burger Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-07-20 Impact factor: 4.226
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: C M de Korne; E M Wit; J de Jong; R A Valdés Olmos; T Buckle; F W B van Leeuwen; H G van der Poel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-08-03 Impact factor: 9.236