Thomas A Hope1,2,3, Rahul Aggarwal3,4, Bryant Chee4, Dora Tao5, Kirsten L Greene6, Matthew R Cooperberg3,6, Felix Feng3,7, Albert Chang7, Charles J Ryan3,4, Eric J Small3,4, Peter R Carroll3,6. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California thomas.hope@ucsf.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, San Francisco VA Medical Center, San Francisco, California. 3. UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 4. Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 5. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 6. Department of Urology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California; and. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Abstract
The purpose of this prospective study was to estimate the effect of 68Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-11 PET on the intended management of patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. Methods: Pre- and postimaging surveys were filled out by the referring providers for patients with biochemical recurrence who were imaged using 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET. The inclusion criterion for this study was a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time of less than 12 mo after initial treatment (NCT02611882). Of the 150 consecutive patients imaged, 126 surveys were completed (84% response rate). The responses were categorized as major change, minor change, no change, or unknown change. Results: There were 103 patients (82%) with disease detected on 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET. On the basis of the survey results, there were 67 patients (53.2%) with major changes in management and 8 patients (6.4%) with minor changes. The proportion of cases resulting in a change in management did not significantly differ by baseline PSA level. In patients with PSA levels below 0.2 ng/dL, 7 of 12 patients had disease detected on 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET, 5 of whom had a major change in management. Conclusion: 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET resulted in a major change in management in 53% of patients with biochemical recurrence. Further studies are warranted to investigate whether PSMA-based management strategies result in improved outcomes for patients.
The purpose of this prospective study was to estimate the effect of 68Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-11 PET on the intended management of patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. Methods: Pre- and postimaging surveys were filled out by the referring providers for patients with biochemical recurrence who were imaged using 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET. The inclusion criterion for this study was a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time of less than 12 mo after initial treatment (NCT02611882). Of the 150 consecutive patients imaged, 126 surveys were completed (84% response rate). The responses were categorized as major change, minor change, no change, or unknown change. Results: There were 103 patients (82%) with disease detected on 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET. On the basis of the survey results, there were 67 patients (53.2%) with major changes in management and 8 patients (6.4%) with minor changes. The proportion of cases resulting in a change in management did not significantly differ by baseline PSA level. In patients with PSA levels below 0.2 ng/dL, 7 of 12 patients had disease detected on 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET, 5 of whom had a major change in management. Conclusion: 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET resulted in a major change in management in 53% of patients with biochemical recurrence. Further studies are warranted to investigate whether PSMA-based management strategies result in improved outcomes for patients.
Authors: Thomas A Hope; Jeremy Z Goodman; Isabel E Allen; Jeremie Calais; Wolfgang P Fendler; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Thomas A Hope; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Matthias Eiber; Louise Emmett; Wolfgang P Fendler; Courtney Lawhn-Heath; Steven P Rowe Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2018-06-27 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Nina-Sophie Schmidt-Hegemann; Chukwuka Eze; Minglun Li; Paul Rogowski; Christian Schaefer; Christian Stief; Alexander Buchner; Constantinos Zamboglou; Wolfgang Peter Fendler; Ute Ganswindt; Clemens Cyran; Peter Bartenstein; Claus Belka; Harun Ilhan Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-12-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Matthew F L Parker; Robert R Flavell; Justin M Luu; Oren S Rosenberg; Michael A Ohliger; David M Wilson Journal: ACS Infect Dis Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 5.084
Authors: Gerald L Andriole; Lale Kostakoglu; Albert Chau; Fenghai Duan; Umar Mahmood; David A Mankoff; David M Schuster; Barry A Siegel Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 7.450
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
Authors: Louise Emmett; Ur Metser; Glenn Bauman; Rodney J Hicks; Andrew Weickhardt; Ian D Davis; Shonit Punwani; Greg Pond; Sue Chua; Bao Ho; Edward Johnston; Frederic Pouliot; Andrew M Scott Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-11-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jeremie Calais; Wolfgang P Fendler; Matthias Eiber; Jeannine Gartmann; Fang-I Chu; Nicholas G Nickols; Robert E Reiter; Matthew B Rettig; Leonard S Marks; Thomas E Ahlering; Linda M Huynh; Roger Slavik; Pawan Gupta; Andrew Quon; Martin S Allen-Auerbach; Johannes Czernin; Ken Herrmann Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 10.057