Christina Bluemel1, Markus Krebs, Bülent Polat, Fränze Linke, Matthias Eiber, Samuel Samnick, Constantin Lapa, Michael Lassmann, Hubertus Riedmiller, Johannes Czernin, Domenico Rubello, Thorsten Bley, Saskia Kropf, Hans-Juergen Wester, Andreas K Buck, Ken Herrmann. 1. From the Departments of *Nuclear Medicine, †Urology, and ‡Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Würzburg, Würzburg; §Department of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum Ansbach, Ansbach; ∥Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany; ¶Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA; #Department of Nuclear Medicine-PET/CT Oncologic & Endocrine Sections, Rovigo Hospital, Rovigo, Italy; **Department of Radiology, University Hospital of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany; ††Scintomics GmbH, Fürstenfeldbruck; and ‡‡Pharmaceutical Radiochemistry, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Investigating the value of Ga-PSMA-PET/CT in biochemically recurring prostate cancer patients with negative F-choline-PET/CT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred thirty-nine consecutive patients with biochemical recurrence after curative (surgery and/or radiotherapy) therapy were offered participation in this sequential clinical imaging approach. Patients first underwent an F-choline-PET/CT. If negative, an additional Ga-PSMA-PET/CT was offered. One hundred twenty-five of 139 eligible patients were included in the study; 32 patients underwent additional Ga-PSMA-PET/CT. Patients with equivocal findings (n = 5) on F-choline-PET/CT and those who declined the additional Ga-PSMA-PET/CT (n = 9) were excluded. Images were analyzed visually for the presence of suspicious lesions. Findings on PET/CT were correlated with PSA level, PSA doubling time (dt), and PSA velocity (vel). RESULTS: The overall detection rates were 85.6% (107/125) for the sequential imaging approach and 74.4% (93/125) for F-choline-PET/CT alone. Ga-PSMA-PET/CT detected sites of recurrence in 43.8% (14/32) of the choline-negative patients. Detection rates of the sequential imaging approach and F-choline-PET/CT alone increased with higher serum PSA levels and PSA vel. Subgroup analysis of Ga-PSMA-PET/CT in F-choline negative patients revealed detection rates of 28.6%, 45.5%, and 71.4% for PSA levels of 0.2 or greater to less than 1 ng/mL, 1 to 2 ng/mL, and greater than 2 ng/mL, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The sequential imaging approach designed to limit Ga-PSMA imaging to patients with negative choline scans resulted in high detection rates. Ga-PSMA-PET/CT identified sites of recurrent disease in 43.8% of the patients with negative F-choline PET/CT scans.
PURPOSE: Investigating the value of Ga-PSMA-PET/CT in biochemically recurring prostate cancerpatients with negative F-choline-PET/CT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred thirty-nine consecutive patients with biochemical recurrence after curative (surgery and/or radiotherapy) therapy were offered participation in this sequential clinical imaging approach. Patients first underwent an F-choline-PET/CT. If negative, an additional Ga-PSMA-PET/CT was offered. One hundred twenty-five of 139 eligible patients were included in the study; 32 patients underwent additional Ga-PSMA-PET/CT. Patients with equivocal findings (n = 5) on F-choline-PET/CT and those who declined the additional Ga-PSMA-PET/CT (n = 9) were excluded. Images were analyzed visually for the presence of suspicious lesions. Findings on PET/CT were correlated with PSA level, PSA doubling time (dt), and PSA velocity (vel). RESULTS: The overall detection rates were 85.6% (107/125) for the sequential imaging approach and 74.4% (93/125) for F-choline-PET/CT alone. Ga-PSMA-PET/CT detected sites of recurrence in 43.8% (14/32) of the choline-negative patients. Detection rates of the sequential imaging approach and F-choline-PET/CT alone increased with higher serum PSA levels and PSA vel. Subgroup analysis of Ga-PSMA-PET/CT in F-choline negative patients revealed detection rates of 28.6%, 45.5%, and 71.4% for PSA levels of 0.2 or greater to less than 1 ng/mL, 1 to 2 ng/mL, and greater than 2 ng/mL, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The sequential imaging approach designed to limit Ga-PSMA imaging to patients with negative choline scans resulted in high detection rates. Ga-PSMA-PET/CT identified sites of recurrent disease in 43.8% of the patients with negative F-choline PET/CT scans.
Authors: Ludwig Rinnab; Joerg Simon; Richard E Hautmann; M V Cronauer; Kathrin Hohl; Andreas K Buck; Sven N Reske; Felix M Mottaghy Journal: World J Urol Date: 2009-02-21 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Zsolt Szabo; Esther Mena; Steven P Rowe; Donika Plyku; Rosa Nidal; Mario A Eisenberger; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Hong Fan; Robert F Dannals; Ying Chen; Ronnie C Mease; Melin Vranesic; Akrita Bhatnagar; George Sgouros; Steve Y Cho; Martin G Pomper Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Vera Graute; Nathalie Jansen; Christopher Ubleis; Michael Seitz; Markus Hartenbach; Michael Karl Scherr; Sven Thieme; Paul Cumming; Katharina Klanke; Reinhold Tiling; Peter Bartenstein; Marcus Hacker Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-11-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Bruce J Trock; Misop Han; Stephen J Freedland; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Theodore L DeWeese; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-06-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ludwig Rinnab; Felix M Mottaghy; Norbert M Blumstein; Sven N Reske; Richard E Hautmann; Kathrin Hohl; Peter Möller; Thomas Wiegel; Rainer Kuefer; Juergen E Gschwend Journal: BJU Int Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: B J Krause; M Souvatzoglou; M Tuncel; K Herrmann; A K Buck; C Praus; T Schuster; H Geinitz; U Treiber; M Schwaiger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-09-22 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Markus Dietlein; Carsten Kobe; Georg Kuhnert; Simone Stockter; Thomas Fischer; Klaus Schomäcker; Matthias Schmidt; Felix Dietlein; Boris D Zlatopolskiy; Philipp Krapf; Raphael Richarz; Stephan Neubauer; Alexander Drzezga; Bernd Neumaier Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.488
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: Oladunni O Akin-Akintayo; Ashesh B Jani; Oluwaseun Odewole; Funmilayo I Tade; Peter T Nieh; Viraj A Master; Leah M Bellamy; Raghuveer K Halkar; Chao Zhang; Zhengjia Chen; Mark M Goodman; David M Schuster Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Jeremie Calais; Johannes Czernin; Minsong Cao; Amar U Kishan; John V Hegde; Narek Shaverdian; Kiri Sandler; Fang-I Chu; Chris R King; Michael L Steinberg; Isabel Rauscher; Nina-Sophie Schmidt-Hegemann; Thorsten Poeppel; Philipp Hetkamp; Francesco Ceci; Ken Herrmann; Wolfgang P Fendler; Matthias Eiber; Nicholas G Nickols Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: C Gasch; C Düwel; K Kopka; C Kratochwil; M Vinsensia; M Eiber; T Maurer; U Haberkorn; B Hadaschik; F L Giesel Journal: Urologe A Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 0.639