David Pfister1,2, Daniel Porres3,4, Axel Heidenreich3,4, Isabel Heidegger3, Ruth Knuechel5, Florian Steib5, Florian F Behrendt6, Frederik A Verburg6. 1. Department of Urology, RWTH University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany. david.pfister@uk-koeln.de. 2. Department of Urology, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Strasse 62, 50937, Köln, Cologne, Germany. david.pfister@uk-koeln.de. 3. Department of Urology, RWTH University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany. 4. Department of Urology, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Strasse 62, 50937, Köln, Cologne, Germany. 5. Department of Pathology, RWTH University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany. 6. Department of Nuclear Medicine, RWTH University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Abstract
AIM: [(68)Ga]PSMA-HBED-CC ((68)Ga-PSMA) is a novel and promising tracer for highly sensitive combined integrated positron emission tomography and X-ray computed tomography (PET/CT) diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer (PCA). Our aim was to assess the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV/NPV), and accuracy per lesion, as well as the positive predictive value per patient of (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT using post-lymphadenectomy histology as a standard, and to compare these values to those obtained in a patient collective scanned using (18)F-Fluoroethylcholine ((18)FEC) PET/CT. METHODS: Thirty eight patients had (18)FEC and 28 patients had (68)Ga-PSMA. We performed a pelvic and/or retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy, if necessary supplemented by resection of locally recurrent lesions in accordance with imaging results. RESULTS: In 30/38 (18)FEC and 23/28 (68)Ga-PSMA patients ≥1 focus of PCA was identified in postsurgical histology, leading to a per-patient PPV of 78.9 % for (18)FEC and 82.1 % for (68)Ga-PSMA. In (18)FEC and (68)Ga-PSMA patients, a total of 378 and 308 lymph nodes and local lesions were removed, respectively. For (18)FEC and (68)for Ga-PSMA, the respective sensitivity (95 % confidence interval) was 71.2 % (64.5-79.6 %) and 86.9 % (75.8-94.2 %), specificity was 86.9 % (82.3-90.6 % ) and 93.1 % (89.2-95.9 %), PPV was 67.3 % (57.7-75.9 %) and 75.7 % (64.0-98.5 %), NPV was 88.8 % (84.4-92.3 %) and 96.6 % (93.5-98.5 %), and accuracy was 82.5 % (78.3-86.8 %) and 91.9 % (88.7 %-95.1 %). CONCLUSION: In the present series Ga-PSMA PET/CT shows a better performance than FEC PET/CT with a significantly higher NPV and accuracy for the detection of locoregional recurrent and/or metastatic lesions prior to salvage lymphadenectomy.
AIM: [(68)Ga]PSMA-HBED-CC ((68)Ga-PSMA) is a novel and promising tracer for highly sensitive combined integrated positron emission tomography and X-ray computed tomography (PET/CT) diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer (PCA). Our aim was to assess the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV/NPV), and accuracy per lesion, as well as the positive predictive value per patient of (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT using post-lymphadenectomy histology as a standard, and to compare these values to those obtained in a patient collective scanned using (18)F-Fluoroethylcholine ((18)FEC) PET/CT. METHODS: Thirty eight patients had (18)FEC and 28 patients had (68)Ga-PSMA. We performed a pelvic and/or retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy, if necessary supplemented by resection of locally recurrent lesions in accordance with imaging results. RESULTS: In 30/38 (18)FEC and 23/28 (68)Ga-PSMApatients ≥1 focus of PCA was identified in postsurgical histology, leading to a per-patient PPV of 78.9 % for (18)FEC and 82.1 % for (68)Ga-PSMA. In (18)FEC and (68)Ga-PSMApatients, a total of 378 and 308 lymph nodes and local lesions were removed, respectively. For (18)FEC and (68)for Ga-PSMA, the respective sensitivity (95 % confidence interval) was 71.2 % (64.5-79.6 %) and 86.9 % (75.8-94.2 %), specificity was 86.9 % (82.3-90.6 % ) and 93.1 % (89.2-95.9 %), PPV was 67.3 % (57.7-75.9 %) and 75.7 % (64.0-98.5 %), NPV was 88.8 % (84.4-92.3 %) and 96.6 % (93.5-98.5 %), and accuracy was 82.5 % (78.3-86.8 %) and 91.9 % (88.7 %-95.1 %). CONCLUSION: In the present series Ga-PSMA PET/CT shows a better performance than FEC PET/CT with a significantly higher NPV and accuracy for the detection of locoregional recurrent and/or metastatic lesions prior to salvage lymphadenectomy.
Authors: Sebastian Mannweiler; Peter Amersdorfer; Slave Trajanoski; Jonathan A Terrett; David King; Gabor Mehes Journal: Pathol Oncol Res Date: 2008-09-18 Impact factor: 3.201
Authors: S Hijazi; B Meller; C Leitsmann; A Strauss; J Meller; C O Ritter; J Lotz; H-U Schildhaus; L Trojan; C O Sahlmann Journal: Prostate Date: 2015-09-10 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Lars Budäus; Sami-Ramzi Leyh-Bannurah; Georg Salomon; Uwe Michl; Hans Heinzer; Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen; Thomas Steuber; Clemens Rosenbaum Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: A Afshar-Oromieh; A Malcher; M Eder; M Eisenhut; H G Linhart; B A Hadaschik; T Holland-Letz; F L Giesel; C Kratochwil; S Haufe; U Haberkorn; C M Zechmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-11-24 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Tobias Maurer; Gregor Weirich; Margret Schottelius; Martina Weineisen; Benjamin Frisch; Asli Okur; Hubert Kübler; Mark Thalgott; Nassir Navab; Markus Schwaiger; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Jürgen E Gschwend; Matthias Eiber Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-05-06 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Frederik L Giesel; H Fiedler; M Stefanova; F Sterzing; M Rius; K Kopka; J H Moltz; A Afshar-Oromieh; P L Choyke; U Haberkorn; C Kratochwil Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-07-11 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Thomas Krohn; Anita Birmes; Oliver H Winz; Natascha I Drude; Felix M Mottaghy; Florian F Behrendt; Frederik A Verburg Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-11-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Simona Malaspina; Ugo De Giorgi; Jukka Kemppainen; Angelo Del Sole; Giovanni Paganelli Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2018-08-16 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Frédéric Bois; Camille Noirot; Sébastien Dietemann; Ismini C Mainta; Thomas Zilli; Valentina Garibotto; Martin A Walter Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-12-15