BACKGROUND: Management of recurrent prostate cancer (CaP) after radiotherapy (RT) is dependent on accurate localization of the site of recurrent disease. OBJECTIVE: To describe the anatomic patterns and clinical features associated with CaP recurrence following RT identified on advanced imaging. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective review of 184 patients with a rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) after RT for CaP. INTERVENTION: C-11 choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography (CholPET). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Recurrence patterns were classified as pelvic soft tissue only (as a surrogate for potentially salvageable disease) versus any extrapelvic disease, and clinical features were compared between patterns. Multivariable logistic regression was used to generate a predictive nomogram for extrapelvic recurrence. Discrimination was assessed with a c-index. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Recurrence site was identified in 161 (87%) patients, with 95 (59%) sites histologically confirmed. Factors associated with the detection of recurrence included the difference between PSA nadir and PSA at CholPET (odds ratio: 1.30, p<0.01) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network high-risk classification (odds ratio: 10.83, p=0.03). One hundred (54.3%) patients recurred in the pelvic soft tissue only, while 61 (33%) had extrapelvic recurrence. Of 21 patients who underwent CholPET prior to meeting the Phoenix criteria of biochemical failure, 15 (71%) had recurrence identified on CholPET with 11 localized to the pelvis. On multivariable analysis, the difference between PSA nadir and PSA at CholPET, time from RT, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group were predictive of recurrence outside of the pelvis, and a nomogram was generated with a c-index of 0.79. CONCLUSIONS: CholPET identified the site of recurrence in 87% of patients with a rising PSA after RT; most commonly within the pelvis in potentially salvageable locations. A predictive nomogram was generated, and pending external validation, this may aid in assessing the risk of disease beyond the pelvis. These findings underscore the importance of advanced imaging when considering management strategies for patients with a rising PSA following primary RT. PATIENT SUMMARY: We identified anatomic patterns of recurrence in patients with a rising prostate-specific antigen after radiotherapy using C-11 choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Most recurrences were localized to the pelvis and we were able to generate a tool to aid in disease localization prior to evaluation with advanced imaging.
BACKGROUND: Management of recurrent prostate cancer (CaP) after radiotherapy (RT) is dependent on accurate localization of the site of recurrent disease. OBJECTIVE: To describe the anatomic patterns and clinical features associated with CaP recurrence following RT identified on advanced imaging. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective review of 184 patients with a rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) after RT for CaP. INTERVENTION: C-11choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography (CholPET). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Recurrence patterns were classified as pelvic soft tissue only (as a surrogate for potentially salvageable disease) versus any extrapelvic disease, and clinical features were compared between patterns. Multivariable logistic regression was used to generate a predictive nomogram for extrapelvic recurrence. Discrimination was assessed with a c-index. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Recurrence site was identified in 161 (87%) patients, with 95 (59%) sites histologically confirmed. Factors associated with the detection of recurrence included the difference between PSA nadir and PSA at CholPET (odds ratio: 1.30, p<0.01) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network high-risk classification (odds ratio: 10.83, p=0.03). One hundred (54.3%) patients recurred in the pelvic soft tissue only, while 61 (33%) had extrapelvic recurrence. Of 21 patients who underwent CholPET prior to meeting the Phoenix criteria of biochemical failure, 15 (71%) had recurrence identified on CholPET with 11 localized to the pelvis. On multivariable analysis, the difference between PSA nadir and PSA at CholPET, time from RT, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk group were predictive of recurrence outside of the pelvis, and a nomogram was generated with a c-index of 0.79. CONCLUSIONS:CholPET identified the site of recurrence in 87% of patients with a rising PSA after RT; most commonly within the pelvis in potentially salvageable locations. A predictive nomogram was generated, and pending external validation, this may aid in assessing the risk of disease beyond the pelvis. These findings underscore the importance of advanced imaging when considering management strategies for patients with a rising PSA following primary RT. PATIENT SUMMARY: We identified anatomic patterns of recurrence in patients with a rising prostate-specific antigen after radiotherapy using C-11choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Most recurrences were localized to the pelvis and we were able to generate a tool to aid in disease localization prior to evaluation with advanced imaging.
Authors: Daher C Chade; James Eastham; Markus Graefen; Jim C Hu; R Jeffrey Karnes; Laurence Klotz; Francesco Montorsi; Hendrik van Poppel; Peter T Scardino; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-01-23 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: D Andrew Loblaw; Tom Pickles; Patrick C Cheung; Himu Lukka; Sergio Faria; Laurence Klotz Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Laura Evangelista; Alberto Briganti; Stefano Fanti; Stephen Joniau; Sven Reske; Riccardo Schiavina; Christian Stief; George N Thalmann; Maria Picchio Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-02-02 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Zachary S Zumsteg; Daniel E Spratt; Paul B Romesser; Xin Pei; Zhigang Zhang; Marisa Kollmeier; Sean McBride; Yoshiya Yamada; Michael J Zelefsky Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-07-10 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: G Créhange; M Roach; E Martin; L Cormier; D Peiffert; A Cochet; O Chapet; S Supiot; J-M Cosset; M Bolla; H T Chung Journal: Cancer Radiother Date: 2014-09-02 Impact factor: 1.018
Authors: William P Parker; Jaden D Evans; Bradley J Stish; Sean S Park; Kenneth Olivier; Richard Choo; Mark A Nathan; Brian T Welch; R Jeffrey Karnes; Lance A Mynderse; Thomas M Pisansky; Eugene D Kwon; Val J Lowe; Brian J Davis Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-11-17 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Jaden D Evans; Lindsay K Morris; Henan Zhang; Siyu Cao; Xin Liu; Kristin C Mara; Bradley J Stish; Brian J Davis; Aaron S Mansfield; Roxana S Dronca; Matthew J Iott; Eugene D Kwon; Robert L Foote; Kenneth R Olivier; Haidong Dong; Sean S Park Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-09-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Laure Michaud; Karim A Touijer; Audrey Mauguen; Michael J Zelefsky; Michael J Morris; Serge K Lyashschenko; Jeremy C Durack; John L Humm; Wolfgang A Weber; Heiko Schöder Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-12-20 Impact factor: 11.082