| Literature DB >> 27229485 |
Sabrina Dewes1, Kilian Schiller2, Katharina Sauter2, Matthias Eiber2, Tobias Maurer2, Markus Schwaiger2, Jürgen E Gschwend2, Stephanie E Combs2, Gregor Habl2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PC) is one of the most commonly treated cancer entities with radiation therapy (RT). Risk group-adapted treatment and avoidance of unnecessary toxicities relies primarily on accurate tumor staging. Thus, the introduction of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) in diagnosis and treatment of PC is a highly interesting development in radiation oncology of urologic tumors. The present work is to evaluate the integration of (68)Ga-PSMA-PET imaging into standard radiation planning of primary definitive treatment of PC and to determine the impact of PSMA imaging on tumor staging.Entities:
Keywords: PSMA-PET; Prostate cancer; Radiation oncology; Radiation therapy; Treatment planning
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27229485 PMCID: PMC4882861 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-016-0646-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiat Oncol ISSN: 1748-717X Impact factor: 3.481
Patients´ characteristics
|
| 74 (59–82) |
|
| |
| Low risk (≤6) | 5 (33.3) |
| Intermediate risk (7) | 4 (26.7) |
| High risk (>7) | 6 (40.0) |
|
| |
| Low risk (≤10) | 7 (46.7) |
| Intermediate risk (10–20) | 3 (20.0) |
| High risk (>20) | 5 (33.3) |
|
| |
| Biopsy T1c | 7 (46.7) |
| Intermediate risk (T2b) | 1 (6.7) |
| High risk (≥T2c) | 7 (46.7) |
Gleason score, PSA levels and Tumor stage risk group assignment according to the 2014 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines on prostate cancer
Detailed information on each patient
| Patient | Gleason score | PSA (ng/ml) | Roach formula risk (%) | Primary staging (CT = 1, MRI = 2, Choline-PET = 3) | cTNM without PSMA-PET | cTNM including PSMA-PET | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T | N | M | T | N | M | |||||
| 1 | 6 | 19.1 | 13 | 1, 2, 3 | 1c |
| 0 | 1c |
| 0 |
| 2 | 7 | 8.5 | 16 | 1,2 |
| 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 |
| 3 | 8 | 9.6 | 26 | 1,2 | 2c |
| 0 | 2c |
| 0 |
| 4 | 6 | 39.6 | 26 | 1,2 | 3b |
| 0 | 3b |
| 0 |
| 5 | 9 | 34.2 | 53 | 1 | 1c | 0 | 0 | 2b | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | 6 | 8.2 | 6 | 1,2 | 2c | 0 | 0 | 2c | 0 | 0 |
| 7 | 7 | 36 | 34 | 1,2 | 3a |
|
| 3a |
|
|
| 8 | 6 | 10.8 | 7 | 1 | 1c | 0 | 0 | 2a | 0 | 0 |
| 9 | 7 | 23 | 25 | 1,2 | 3b | 0 | 0 | 3b | 0 | 0 |
| 10 | 8 | 9.4 | 26 | 1,2,3 | 2c |
| 0 | 2c |
| 0 |
| 11 | 8 | 13.5 | 29 | 1 |
| 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 |
| 12 | 7 | 8.7 | 16 | 1,2 | 1c | 0 | 0 | 2a | 0 | 0 |
| 13 | 6 | 63.9 | 43 | 1 | 1c | 0 | 0 | 2c | 0 | 0 |
| 14 | 9 | 9.6 | 36 | 1,2 | 1c | 0 | 0 | 2c | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | 8 | 23 | 35 | 1, 2 | 1c |
| X | 2c |
| Xb |
Shown are biopsy Gleason score, maximum PSA level before treatment and calculation of lymph node involvement following the Roach formula, as well as evolvement of tumor stages before and after PSMA-PET imaging (changes are in bold). aM1 based on para-aortal lymph nodes. bPSMA uptake in the 5th rib right, without CT morphologic correlation, suggesting possible bone metastasis
Fig. 1Down-staging by 68Ga-PSMA-PET. Choline-PET-CT (a) with elevated tracer uptake of left iliac lymph node. 68Ga-PSMA-PET (b) does not confirm the questionable involvement seen by Choline-PET-CT
Fig. 2Up-staging due to extra capsular spread by 68Ga-PSMA-PET. Questionable extra capsular spread on MRI (a). In 68Ga-PSMA-PET imaging (b) is strong tracer uptake in the bladder and dorsal, as indicated by the arrow, in the extra capsular region, suggesting a strong possibility of its involvement
Fig. 3Up-staging due to lymph node involvement by 68Ga-PSMA-PET. Non-suspicious lymph nodes on MRI (a) presacral. In 68Ga-PSMA-PET imaging (b), the lymph node displays enhancement and was thus treated with a higher radiation dose
Fig. 4Treatment plan comparison. Basic treatment plan (a), including lymph node irradiation up to 45 Gy à 1.8 Gy. Based on the information obtained by 68Ga-PSMA-PET imaging, PET-positive nodes receive a simultaneous integrated boost to 54 Gy à 2.17 Gy. In comparison with Fig. 4a an example of the dose distribution (b) without the knowledge through the 68Ga-PSMA-PET; the lymph node involvement would not have been suspected and therefore only the prostate itself would have been treated
Distribution of prostate cancer T stage before and after PSMA-PET imaging of the prostate
| T stage | Initial clinical Staging: | Relative up-staging by PSMA-PET-imaging: | Relative down-staging by PSMA-PET-imaging: | PSMA-PET-imaging staging: |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Biopsy T1c | 6 (40.0) | 1 (6.7) | 1 (6.7) | 0 |
| Low risk (≤T2a) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 (13.3) |
| Intermediate risk (T2b) | 2 (13.3) | 1 (6.7) | 0 | 1 (6.7) |
| High risk (≥T2c) | 7 (46.7) | 4 (26.7) | 1 (6.7) | 12 (80.0) |
Dependence on Gleason Score and PSA serum levels for up- and down-staging
| Number | Tumor up-staging: | Tumor down-staging: | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gleason score <7 | 5 | 1 (6.7) | 1 (6.7) |
| Gleason score 7 | 4 | 2 (13.3) | 0 |
| Gleason score > 7 | 6 | 3 (20.0) | 1 (6.7) |
| PSA level <10 ng/ml | 7 | 3 (20.0) | 1 (6.7) |
| PSA level 10–20 ng/ml | 3 | 1 (6.7) | 1 (6.7) |
| PSA level >20 ng/ml | 5 | 2 (13.3) | 0 |