Martin T Freitag1,2, Jan P Radtke3,4, Ali Afshar-Oromieh5, Matthias C Roethke3, Boris A Hadaschik4, Martin Gleave6, David Bonekamp3, Klaus Kopka7, Matthias Eder7, Thorsten Heusser8, Marc Kachelriess8, Kathrin Wieczorek9, Christos Sachpekidis10, Paul Flechsig5, Frederik Giesel5, Markus Hohenfellner4, Uwe Haberkorn5, Heinz-Peter Schlemmer3, A Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss10. 1. Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany. m.freitag@dkfz.de. 2. Clinical Cooperation Unit Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany. m.freitag@dkfz.de. 3. Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Department of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 6. The Vancouver Prostate Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 7. Division of Radiopharmaceutical Chemistry, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany. 8. Department of Medical Physics in Radiology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany. 9. Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 10. Clinical Cooperation Unit Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The positron emission tomography (PET) tracer 68Ga-PSMA-11, targeting the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), is rapidly excreted into the urinary tract. This leads to significant radioactivity in the bladder, which may limit the PET-detection of local recurrence (LR) of prostate cancer (PC) after radical prostatectomy (RP), developing in close proximity to the bladder. Here, we analyze if there is additional value of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) compared to the 68Ga-PSMA-11-PET-component of PET/CT or PET/MRI to detect LR. METHODS: One hundred and nineteen patients with biochemical recurrence after prior RP underwent both hybrid 68Ga-PSMA-11-PET/CTlow-dose (1 h p.i.) and -PET/MRI (2-3 h p.i.) including a mpMRI protocol of the prostatic bed. The comparison of both methods was restricted to the abdomen with focus on LR (McNemar). Bladder-LR distance and recurrence size were measured in axial T2w-TSE. A logistic regression was performed to determine the influence of these variables on detectability in 68Ga-PSMA-11-PET. Standardized-uptake-value (SUVmean) quantification of LR was performed. RESULTS: There were 93/119 patients that had at least one pathologic finding. In addition, 18/119 Patients (15.1%) were diagnosed with a LR in mpMRI of PET/MRI but only nine were PET-positive in PET/CT and PET/MRI. This mismatch was statistically significant (p = 0.004). Detection of LR using the PET-component was significantly influenced by proximity to the bladder (p = 0.028). The PET-pattern of LR-uptake was classified into three types (1): separated from bladder; (2): fuses with bladder, and (3): obliterated by bladder). The size of LRs did not affect PET-detectability (p = 0.84), mean size was 1.7 ± 0.69 cm long axis, 1.2 ± 0.46 cm short-axis. SUVmean in nine men was 8.7 ± 3.7 (PET/CT) and 7.0 ± 4.2 (PET/MRI) but could not be quantified in the remaining nine cases (obliterated by bladder). CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrates additional value of hybrid 68Ga-PSMA-11-PET/MRI by gaining complementary diagnostic information compared to the 68Ga-PSMA-11-PET/CTlow-dose for patients with LR of PC.
PURPOSE: The positron emission tomography (PET) tracer 68Ga-PSMA-11, targeting the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), is rapidly excreted into the urinary tract. This leads to significant radioactivity in the bladder, which may limit the PET-detection of local recurrence (LR) of prostate cancer (PC) after radical prostatectomy (RP), developing in close proximity to the bladder. Here, we analyze if there is additional value of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) compared to the 68Ga-PSMA-11-PET-component of PET/CT or PET/MRI to detect LR. METHODS: One hundred and nineteen patients with biochemical recurrence after prior RP underwent both hybrid 68Ga-PSMA-11-PET/CTlow-dose (1 h p.i.) and -PET/MRI (2-3 h p.i.) including a mpMRI protocol of the prostatic bed. The comparison of both methods was restricted to the abdomen with focus on LR (McNemar). Bladder-LR distance and recurrence size were measured in axial T2w-TSE. A logistic regression was performed to determine the influence of these variables on detectability in 68Ga-PSMA-11-PET. Standardized-uptake-value (SUVmean) quantification of LR was performed. RESULTS: There were 93/119 patients that had at least one pathologic finding. In addition, 18/119 Patients (15.1%) were diagnosed with a LR in mpMRI of PET/MRI but only nine were PET-positive in PET/CT and PET/MRI. This mismatch was statistically significant (p = 0.004). Detection of LR using the PET-component was significantly influenced by proximity to the bladder (p = 0.028). The PET-pattern of LR-uptake was classified into three types (1): separated from bladder; (2): fuses with bladder, and (3): obliterated by bladder). The size of LRs did not affect PET-detectability (p = 0.84), mean size was 1.7 ± 0.69 cm long axis, 1.2 ± 0.46 cm short-axis. SUVmean in nine men was 8.7 ± 3.7 (PET/CT) and 7.0 ± 4.2 (PET/MRI) but could not be quantified in the remaining nine cases (obliterated by bladder). CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrates additional value of hybrid 68Ga-PSMA-11-PET/MRI by gaining complementary diagnostic information compared to the 68Ga-PSMA-11-PET/CTlow-dose for patients with LR of PC.
Entities:
Keywords:
68Ga-PSMA-11; Local recurrence; Local relapse; PET/CT; PET/MRI; Prostate specific membrane antigen
Authors: Francesco Paparo; Arnoldo Piccardo; Lorenzo Bacigalupo; Andrea Romagnoli; Riccardo Piccazzo; Michela Monticone; Luca Cevasco; Fabio Campodonico; Giuseppe Maria Conzi; Giorgio Carmignani; Gian Andrea Rollandi Journal: Abdom Imaging Date: 2015-08
Authors: A Afshar-Oromieh; U Haberkorn; H P Schlemmer; M Fenchel; M Eder; M Eisenhut; B A Hadaschik; A Kopp-Schneider; M Röthke Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-12-19 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Geoffrey Roman-Jimenez; Renaud De Crevoisier; Julie Leseur; Anne Devillers; Juan David Ospina; Antoine Simon; Pierre Terve; Oscar Acosta Journal: Comput Biol Med Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 4.589
Authors: Isabel Rauscher; Tobias Maurer; Ambros J Beer; Frank-Philipp Graner; Bernhard Haller; Gregor Weirich; Alan Doherty; Jürgen E Gschwend; Markus Schwaiger; Matthias Eiber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 10.057
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: 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: Salvatore Francesco Carbone; Luigi Pirtoli; Veronica Ricci; Tommaso Carfagno; Paolo Tini; Augusto La Penna; Eleonora Cacchiarelli; Luca Volterrani Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2014-02-16 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Christos Sachpekidis; Leyun Pan; Boris A Hadaschik; Klaus Kopka; Uwe Haberkorn; Antonia Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-10-20
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: Verane Achard; Giorgio Lamanna; Antoine Denis; Thomas De Perrot; Ismini Charis Mainta; Osman Ratib; Christophe Iselin; Raymond Miralbell; Valentina Garibotto; Thomas Zilli Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2019-06-12 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: Christian Uprimny; Steffen Bayerschmidt; Alexander Stephan Kroiss; Josef Fritz; Bernhard Nilica; Anna Svirydenka; Clemens Decristoforo; Gianpaolo di Santo; Elisabeth von Guggenberg; Wolfgang Horninger; Irene Johanna Virgolini Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 9.236
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
Authors: Liza Lindenberg; Esther Mena; Baris Turkbey; Joanna H Shih; Sarah E Reese; Stephanie A Harmon; Ilhan Lim; Frank Lin; Anita Ton; Yolanda L McKinney; Philip Eclarinal; Deborah E Citrin; William Dahut; Ravi Madan; Bradford J Wood; Venkatesh Krishnasamy; Richard Chang; Elliot Levy; Peter Pinto; Janet F Eary; Peter L Choyke Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-07-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Martin T Freitag; Claudia Kesch; Jens Cardinale; Paul Flechsig; Ralf Floca; Matthias Eiber; David Bonekamp; Jan P Radtke; Clemens Kratochwil; Klaus Kopka; Markus Hohenfellner; Albrecht Stenzinger; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Uwe Haberkorn; Frederik Giesel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-10-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Benedikt Kranzbühler; Hannes Nagel; Anton S Becker; Julian Müller; Martin Huellner; Paul Stolzmann; Urs Muehlematter; Matthias Guckenberger; Philipp A Kaufmann; Daniel Eberli; Irene A Burger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-10-14 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Christos Sachpekidis; A Afshar-Oromieh; K Kopka; D S Strauss; L Pan; U Haberkorn; A Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 9.236