Michael McCarthy1,2, Tiffany Langton3,4, Divesh Kumar3,4, Andrew Campbell3,4,5. 1. Molecular Imaging and Therapy Service (Nuclear Medicine), Fiona Stanley Hospital, Perth, Australia. Michael.McCarthy@health.wa.gov.au. 2. Molecular Imaging and Therapy Service (Nuclear Medicine), Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Australia. Michael.McCarthy@health.wa.gov.au. 3. Molecular Imaging and Therapy Service (Nuclear Medicine), Fiona Stanley Hospital, Perth, Australia. 4. Molecular Imaging and Therapy Service (Nuclear Medicine), Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Australia. 5. Medical Engineering and Physics, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Gallium(68)-labelled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) radiopharmaceuticals can be used to detect prostate cancer (PCa) cells due the their over expression of PSMA. The 68Ga HBED-PSMA (PSMA-HBED) ligand has been most widely used and can be considered the current gold standard agent. Further PSMA ligands based on the DOTAGA and DOTA conjugates have more recently been developed. These agents (PSMA-I&T and PSMA-617) have potential theranostic capabilities as they can be conjugated with therapeutic radioisotopes. In this study, we examine whether PSMA-I&T has comparative efficacy, such that it could replace PSMA-HBED as a diagnostic agent in prostate carcinoma. METHODS: 19 patients with PCa referred for 68Ga-PSMA imaging were imaged with PSMA-HBED and PSMA-I&T PET-CT imaging within a 2-week period. The two pharmaceuticals were synthesised using click chemistry. Imaging was performed using the same standardised methodology on a Siemens Biograph mCT. All sites of PSMA binding thought to represent PCa (probable or definite) were included in a lesion analysis that examined lesion concordance and lesional binding efficiency (SUVpeak) between the two radiopharmaceuticals. For each patient, SUVmean of the LV cavity blood pool, bone, muscle and liver were determined as image background measures. RESULTS: Across all patients, PSMA uptake was observed in 47 lesions (10 bone lesions, 19 nodal lesions, 18 high-grade intraprostatic binding). Lesions were concordant between the agents in all except for two small (<4 mm) nodal lesions which were not visualised with PSMA-I&T. SUVpeak assessment showed significantly greater overall lesion binding with HBED (paired t test, p = 0.0001). LV blood pool and bone marrow SUVmean were significantly higher for I&T than HBED (paired t test, blood pool p < 1 × 10-5, bone marrow p < 0.005). CONCLUSION: Intra-patient comparative imaging demonstrates higher lesional PSMA-HBED binding than PSMA-I&T and that the HBED agent is likely to have better lesion contrast. While there was concordance in 96% of lesions, 2 small nodal lesions were appreciated with PSMA-HBED imaging while considered normal with PSMA-I&T. These findings suggest that HBED-PSMA has a slightly higher diagnostic accuracy in comparison to PSMA-I&T.
PURPOSE:Gallium(68)-labelled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) radiopharmaceuticals can be used to detect prostate cancer (PCa) cells due the their over expression of PSMA. The 68Ga HBED-PSMA (PSMA-HBED) ligand has been most widely used and can be considered the current gold standard agent. Further PSMA ligands based on the DOTAGA and DOTA conjugates have more recently been developed. These agents (PSMA-I&T and PSMA-617) have potential theranostic capabilities as they can be conjugated with therapeutic radioisotopes. In this study, we examine whether PSMA-I&T has comparative efficacy, such that it could replace PSMA-HBED as a diagnostic agent in prostate carcinoma. METHODS: 19 patients with PCa referred for 68Ga-PSMA imaging were imaged with PSMA-HBED and PSMA-I&T PET-CT imaging within a 2-week period. The two pharmaceuticals were synthesised using click chemistry. Imaging was performed using the same standardised methodology on a Siemens Biograph mCT. All sites of PSMA binding thought to represent PCa (probable or definite) were included in a lesion analysis that examined lesion concordance and lesional binding efficiency (SUVpeak) between the two radiopharmaceuticals. For each patient, SUVmean of the LV cavity blood pool, bone, muscle and liver were determined as image background measures. RESULTS: Across all patients, PSMA uptake was observed in 47 lesions (10 bone lesions, 19 nodal lesions, 18 high-grade intraprostatic binding). Lesions were concordant between the agents in all except for two small (<4 mm) nodal lesions which were not visualised with PSMA-I&T. SUVpeak assessment showed significantly greater overall lesion binding with HBED (paired t test, p = 0.0001). LV blood pool and bone marrow SUVmean were significantly higher for I&T than HBED (paired t test, blood pool p < 1 × 10-5, bone marrow p < 0.005). CONCLUSION: Intra-patient comparative imaging demonstrates higher lesional PSMA-HBED binding than PSMA-I&T and that the HBED agent is likely to have better lesion contrast. While there was concordance in 96% of lesions, 2 small nodal lesions were appreciated with PSMA-HBED imaging while considered normal with PSMA-I&T. These findings suggest that HBED-PSMA has a slightly higher diagnostic accuracy in comparison to PSMA-I&T.
Authors: Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Henrik Hetzheim; Clemens Kratochwil; Martina Benesova; Matthias Eder; Oliver C Neels; Michael Eisenhut; Wolfgang Kübler; Tim Holland-Letz; Frederik L Giesel; Walter Mier; Klaus Kopka; Uwe Haberkorn Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-08-20 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Clemens Kratochwil; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Klaus Kopka; Uwe Haberkorn; Frederik L Giesel Journal: Semin Nucl Med Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 4.446
Authors: G L Wright; B M Grob; C Haley; K Grossman; K Newhall; D Petrylak; J Troyer; A Konchuba; P F Schellhammer; R Moriarty Journal: Urology Date: 1996-08 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Sven Perner; Matthias D Hofer; Robert Kim; Rajal B Shah; Haojie Li; Peter Möller; Richard E Hautmann; Juergen E Gschwend; Rainer Kuefer; Mark A Rubin Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2007-02-22 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Martina Benešová; Martin Schäfer; Ulrike Bauder-Wüst; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Clemens Kratochwil; Walter Mier; Uwe Haberkorn; Klaus Kopka; Matthias Eder Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jeffrey S Ross; Christine E Sheehan; Hugh A G Fisher; Ronald P Kaufman; Prabhjot Kaur; Karen Gray; Iain Webb; Gary S Gray; Rebecca Mosher; Bhaskar V S Kallakury Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2003-12-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Simona Malaspina; Ugo De Giorgi; Jukka Kemppainen; Angelo Del Sole; Giovanni Paganelli Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2018-08-16 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Ruslan Cusnir; Andrew Cakebread; Margaret S Cooper; Jennifer D Young; Philip J Blower; Michelle T Ma Journal: RSC Adv Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 4.036
Authors: Thorsten Derlin; Sebastian Schmuck; Cathleen Juhl; Steffi Teichert; Johanna Zörgiebel; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Sophie M Schneefeld; Almut C A Walte; James T Thackeray; Tobias L Ross; Frank M Bengel Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Wojciech Cytawa; Anna Katharina Seitz; Stefan Kircher; Kazuhito Fukushima; Johannes Tran-Gia; Andreas Schirbel; Tomasz Bandurski; Piotr Lass; Markus Krebs; Wojciech Połom; Marcin Matuszewski; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Andreas K Buck; Hubert Kübler; Constantin Lapa Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-09-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Marcin Czarniecki; Esther Mena; Liza Lindenberg; Marek Cacko; Stephanie Harmon; Jan Philipp Radtke; Frederick Giesel; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2018-10
Authors: Falk Gühne; Stefanie Radke; Thomas Winkens; Christian Kühnel; Julia Greiser; Philipp Seifert; Robert Drescher; Martin Freesmeyer Journal: Pharmaceuticals (Basel) Date: 2021-12-22