Thomas Pyka1, Shozo Okamoto2,3, Marielena Dahlbender4, Robert Tauber4, Margitta Retz4, Matthias Heck4, Nagara Tamaki3, Markus Schwaiger2, Tobias Maurer4, Matthias Eiber2. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar der TU München, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. thomas.pyka@tum.de. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar der TU München, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan. 4. Department of Urology, Klinikum rechts der Isar der TU München, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of our study was to compare the diagnostic performance of 68Ga-PSMA PET and 99mTc bone scintigraphy (BS) for the detection of bone metastases in prostate cancer (PC) patients. METHODS: One hundred twenty-six patients who received planar BS and PSMA PET within three months and without change of therapy were extracted from our database. Bone lesions were categorized into benign, metastatic, or equivocal by two experienced observers. A best valuable comparator (BVC) was defined based on BS, PET, additional imaging, and follow-up data. The cohort was further divided into clinical subgroups (primary staging, biochemical recurrence, and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer [mCRPC]). Additionally, subgroups of patients with less than 30 days delay between the two imaging procedures and with additional single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 75 of 126 patients were diagnosed with bone metastases. Sensitivities and specificities regarding overall bone involvement were 98.7-100 % and 88.2-100 % for PET, and 86.7-89.3 % and 60.8-96.1 % (p < 0.001) for BS, with ranges representing results for 'optimistic' or 'pessimistic' classification of equivocal lesions. Out of 1115 examined bone regions, 410 showed metastases. Region-based analysis revealed a sensitivity and specificity of 98.8-99.0 % and 98.9-100 % for PET, and 82.4-86.6 % and 91.6-97.9 % (p < 0.001) for BS, respectively. PSMA PET also performed better in all subgroups, except patient-based analysis in mCRPC. CONCLUSION: Ga-PSMA PET outperforms planar BS for the detection of affected bone regions as well as determination of overall bone involvement in PC patients. Our results indicate that BS in patients who have received PSMA PET for staging only rarely offers additional information; however, prospective studies, including a standardized integrated x-ray computed tomography (SPECT/CT) protocol, should be performed in order to confirm the presented results.
PURPOSE: The aim of our study was to compare the diagnostic performance of 68Ga-PSMA PET and 99mTc bone scintigraphy (BS) for the detection of bone metastases in prostate cancer (PC) patients. METHODS: One hundred twenty-six patients who received planar BS and PSMA PET within three months and without change of therapy were extracted from our database. Bone lesions were categorized into benign, metastatic, or equivocal by two experienced observers. A best valuable comparator (BVC) was defined based on BS, PET, additional imaging, and follow-up data. The cohort was further divided into clinical subgroups (primary staging, biochemical recurrence, and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer [mCRPC]). Additionally, subgroups of patients with less than 30 days delay between the two imaging procedures and with additional single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 75 of 126 patients were diagnosed with bone metastases. Sensitivities and specificities regarding overall bone involvement were 98.7-100 % and 88.2-100 % for PET, and 86.7-89.3 % and 60.8-96.1 % (p < 0.001) for BS, with ranges representing results for 'optimistic' or 'pessimistic' classification of equivocal lesions. Out of 1115 examined bone regions, 410 showed metastases. Region-based analysis revealed a sensitivity and specificity of 98.8-99.0 % and 98.9-100 % for PET, and 82.4-86.6 % and 91.6-97.9 % (p < 0.001) for BS, respectively. PSMA PET also performed better in all subgroups, except patient-based analysis in mCRPC. CONCLUSION: Ga-PSMA PET outperforms planar BS for the detection of affected bone regions as well as determination of overall bone involvement in PC patients. Our results indicate that BS in patients who have received PSMA PET for staging only rarely offers additional information; however, prospective studies, including a standardized integrated x-ray computed tomography (SPECT/CT) protocol, should be performed in order to confirm the presented results.
Entities:
Keywords:
68Ga-PSMA; Bone metastasis; Bone scintigraphy; Prostate cancer
Authors: H Schirrmeister; G Glatting; J Hetzel; K Nüssle; C Arslandemir; A K Buck; K Dziuk; A Gabelmann; S N Reske; M Hetzel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ivan Jambor; Anna Kuisma; Susan Ramadan; Riikka Huovinen; Minna Sandell; Sami Kajander; Jukka Kemppainen; Esa Kauppila; Joakim Auren; Harri Merisaari; Jani Saunavaara; Tommi Noponen; Heikki Minn; Hannu J Aronen; Marko Seppänen Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2015-04-02 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Ian Thompson; James Brantley Thrasher; Gunnar Aus; Arthur L Burnett; Edith D Canby-Hagino; Michael S Cookson; Anthony V D'Amico; Roger R Dmochowski; David T Eton; Jeffrey D Forman; S Larry Goldenberg; Javier Hernandez; Celestia S Higano; Stephen R Kraus; Judd W Moul; Catherine M Tangen Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: James L Mohler; Philip W Kantoff; Andrew J Armstrong; Robert R Bahnson; Michael Cohen; Anthony Victor D'Amico; James A Eastham; Charles A Enke; Thomas A Farrington; Celestia S Higano; Eric Mark Horwitz; Christopher J Kane; Mark H Kawachi; Michael Kuettel; Timothy M Kuzel; Richard J Lee; Arnold W Malcolm; David Miller; Elizabeth R Plimack; Julio M Pow-Sang; David Raben; Sylvia Richey; Mack Roach; Eric Rohren; Stan Rosenfeld; Edward Schaeffer; Eric J Small; Guru Sonpavde; Sandy Srinivas; Cy Stein; Seth A Strope; Jonathan Tward; Dorothy A Shead; Maria Ho Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Thorsten Derlin; Sebastian Schmuck; Cathleen Juhl; Johanna Zörgiebel; Sophie M Schneefeld; Almut C A Walte; Katja Hueper; Christoph A von Klot; Christoph Henkenberens; Hans Christiansen; James T Thackeray; Tobias L Ross; Frank M Bengel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-01-07 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Rohan Nandurkar; Pimmeke van Leeuwen; Phillip Stricker; Henry Woo; Rajdeep Kooner; Carlo Yuen; Gordon O'Neill; David Ende; Thomas Cusick; Bao Ho; Adam Hickey; Louise Emmett Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-01-23 Impact factor: 3.039
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