Johannes Schwenck1,2, Hansjoerg Rempp3, Gerald Reischl2, Stephan Kruck4, Arnulf Stenzl4, Konstantin Nikolaou3, Christina Pfannenberg3, Christian la Fougère5,6. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine and Clinical Molecular Imaging, Eberhard Karls University, Otfried-Müller-Straße 14, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. 2. Department of Preclinical Imaging and Radiopharmacy, Eberhard Karls University, Röntgenweg 13, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. 3. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Eberhard Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler-Straße 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. 4. Department of Urology, Eberhard Karls University, Hoppe-Seyler-Straße 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine and Clinical Molecular Imaging, Eberhard Karls University, Otfried-Müller-Straße 14, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. christian.lafougere@med.uni-tuebingen.de. 6. German Cancer Consortium, German Cancer Research Center Partner Site, Heidelberg, Germany. christian.lafougere@med.uni-tuebingen.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is expressed ubiquitously on the membrane of most prostate tumors and its metastasis. While PET/CT using 11C-choline was considered as the gold standard in the staging of prostate cancer, PET with radiolabelled PSMA ligands was introduced into the clinic in recent years. Our aim was to compare the PSMA ligand 68Ga-PSMA-11 with 11C-choline in patients with primary and recurrent prostate cancer. METHODS: 123 patients underwent a whole-body PET/CT examination using 68Ga-PSMA-11 and 11C-choline. Suspicious lesions were evaluated visually and semiquantitatively (SUVavg). Out of these, 103 suffered from a confirmed biochemical relapse after prostatectomy and/or radiotherapy (mean PSA level of 4.5 ng/ml), while 20 patients underwent primary staging. RESULTS: In 67 patients with biochemical relapse, we detected 458 lymph nodes suspicious for metastasis. PET using 68Ga-PSMA-11 showed a significantly higher uptake and detection rate than 11C-choline PET. Also 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET identified significantly more patients with suspicious lymph nodes as well as affected lymph nodes regions especially at low PSA levels. Bone lesions suspicious for prostate cancer metastasis were revealed in 36 patients' biochemical relapse. Significantly more bone lesions were detected by 68Ga-PSMA-11, but only 3 patients had only PSMA-positive bone lesions. Nevertheless, we detected also 29 suspicious lymph nodes and 8 bone lesions, which were only positive as per 11C-choline PET. These findings led to crucial differences in the TNM classification and the identification of oligometastatic patients. In the patients who underwent initial staging, all primary tumors showed uptake of both tracers. Although significantly more suspicious lymph nodes and bone lesions were identified, only 2 patients presented with bone lesions only detected by 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET. CONCLUSION: Thus, PET using 68Ga-PSMA-11 showed a higher detection rate than 11C-choline PET for lymph nodes as well as bone lesions. However, we found lymph nodes and bone lesions which were not concordant applying both tracers.
PURPOSE:Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is expressed ubiquitously on the membrane of most prostate tumors and its metastasis. While PET/CT using 11C-choline was considered as the gold standard in the staging of prostate cancer, PET with radiolabelled PSMA ligands was introduced into the clinic in recent years. Our aim was to compare the PSMA ligand 68Ga-PSMA-11 with 11C-choline in patients with primary and recurrent prostate cancer. METHODS: 123 patients underwent a whole-body PET/CT examination using 68Ga-PSMA-11 and 11C-choline. Suspicious lesions were evaluated visually and semiquantitatively (SUVavg). Out of these, 103 suffered from a confirmed biochemical relapse after prostatectomy and/or radiotherapy (mean PSA level of 4.5 ng/ml), while 20 patients underwent primary staging. RESULTS: In 67 patients with biochemical relapse, we detected 458 lymph nodes suspicious for metastasis. PET using 68Ga-PSMA-11 showed a significantly higher uptake and detection rate than 11C-choline PET. Also 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET identified significantly more patients with suspicious lymph nodes as well as affected lymph nodes regions especially at low PSA levels. Bone lesions suspicious for prostate cancer metastasis were revealed in 36 patients' biochemical relapse. Significantly more bone lesions were detected by 68Ga-PSMA-11, but only 3 patients had only PSMA-positive bone lesions. Nevertheless, we detected also 29 suspicious lymph nodes and 8 bone lesions, which were only positive as per 11C-choline PET. These findings led to crucial differences in the TNM classification and the identification of oligometastatic patients. In the patients who underwent initial staging, all primary tumors showed uptake of both tracers. Although significantly more suspicious lymph nodes and bone lesions were identified, only 2 patients presented with bone lesions only detected by 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET. CONCLUSION: Thus, PET using 68Ga-PSMA-11 showed a higher detection rate than 11C-choline PET for lymph nodes as well as bone lesions. However, we found lymph nodes and bone lesions which were not concordant applying both tracers.
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: Cornelia Brendle; Jürgen Kupferschläger; Konstantin Nikolaou; Christian la Fougère; Sergios Gatidis; Christina Pfannenberg Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2014-11-01 Impact factor: 3.528
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: Firas Abdollah; Giorgio Gandaglia; Nazareno Suardi; Umberto Capitanio; Andrea Salonia; Alessandro Nini; Marco Moschini; Maxine Sun; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Sharhokh F Shariat; Francesco Montorsi; Alberto Briganti Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-06-02 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Milan Grkovski; Karem Gharzeddine; Peter Sawan; Heiko Schöder; Laure Michaud; Wolfgang A Weber; John L Humm Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Maya Wolf; Uwe Haberkorn; Marc Kachelrieß; Regula Gnirs; Klaus Kopka; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Martin T Freitag Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-05-15 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Andrei Fodor; Andrea Lancia; Francesco Ceci; Maria Picchio; Morten Hoyer; Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa; Piet Ost; Paolo Castellucci; Elena Incerti; Nadia Di Muzio; Gianluca Ingrosso Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-05-11 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Julian Müller; Daniela A Ferraro; Urs J Muehlematter; Helena I Garcia Schüler; Sarah Kedzia; Daniel Eberli; Matthias Guckenberger; Stephanie G C Kroeze; Tullio Sulser; Daniel M Schmid; Aurelius Omlin; Alexander Müller; Thomas Zilli; Hubert John; Helmut Kranzbuehler; Philipp A Kaufmann; Gustav K von Schulthess; Irene A Burger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-11-28 Impact factor: 9.236