Can Öbek1, Tünkut Doğanca2, Emre Demirci3, Meltem Ocak4, Ali Rıza Kural5, Asıf Yıldırım6, Uğur Yücetaş7, Çetin Demirdağ8, Sarper M Erdoğan9, Levent Kabasakal10. 1. Department of Urology, Acibadem Taksim Hospital, Inonu Mah., Nizamiye Cad. No:1, 34373 Sisli, Istanbul, Turkey. 2. Department of Urology, Acibadem Taksim Hospital, Inonu Mah., Nizamiye Cad. No:1, 34373 Sisli, Istanbul, Turkey. tunkutdoganca@gmail.com. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Sisli Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. 4. Faculty of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey. 5. Department of Urology, Acibadem University, Istanbul, Turkey. 6. Department of Urology, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey. 7. Department of Urology, Istanbul Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. 8. Department of Urology, Istanbul University, Cerrahpasa School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey. 9. Department of Public Health, Istanbul University, Cerrahpasa School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey. 10. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Istanbul University, Cerrahpasa School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of 68Ga-PSMA PET in predicting lymph node (LN) metastases in primary N staging in high-risk and very high-risk nonmetastatic prostate cancer in comparison with morphological imaging. METHODS: This was a multicentre trial of the Society of Urologic Oncology in Turkey in conjunction with the Nuclear Medicine Department of Cerrahpasa School of Medicine, Istanbul University. Patients were accrued from eight centres. Patients with high-risk and very high-risk disease scheduled to undergo surgical treatment with extended LN dissection between July 2014 and October 2015 were included. Either MRI or CT was used for morphological imaging. PSMA PET/CT was performed and evaluated at a single centre. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were calculated for the detection of lymphatic metastases by PSMA PET/CT and morphological imaging. Kappa values were calculated to evaluate the correlation between the numbers of LN metastases detected by PSMA PET/CT and by histopathology. RESULTS: Data on 51 eligible patients are presented. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of PSMA PET in detecting LN metastases in the primary setting were 53%, 86% and 76%, and increased to 67%, 88% and 81% in the subgroup with of patients with ≥15 LN removed. Kappa values for the correlation between imaging and pathology were 0.41 for PSMA PET and 0.18 for morphological imaging. CONCLUSIONS: PSMA PET/CT is superior to morphological imaging for the detection of metastatic LNs in patients with primary prostate cancer. Surgical dissection remains the gold standard for precise lymphatic staging.
PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of 68Ga-PSMA PET in predicting lymph node (LN) metastases in primary N staging in high-risk and very high-risk nonmetastatic prostate cancer in comparison with morphological imaging. METHODS: This was a multicentre trial of the Society of Urologic Oncology in Turkey in conjunction with the Nuclear Medicine Department of Cerrahpasa School of Medicine, Istanbul University. Patients were accrued from eight centres. Patients with high-risk and very high-risk disease scheduled to undergo surgical treatment with extended LN dissection between July 2014 and October 2015 were included. Either MRI or CT was used for morphological imaging. PSMA PET/CT was performed and evaluated at a single centre. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were calculated for the detection of lymphatic metastases by PSMA PET/CT and morphological imaging. Kappa values were calculated to evaluate the correlation between the numbers of LN metastases detected by PSMA PET/CT and by histopathology. RESULTS: Data on 51 eligible patients are presented. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of PSMA PET in detecting LN metastases in the primary setting were 53%, 86% and 76%, and increased to 67%, 88% and 81% in the subgroup with of patients with ≥15 LN removed. Kappa values for the correlation between imaging and pathology were 0.41 for PSMA PET and 0.18 for morphological imaging. CONCLUSIONS:PSMA PET/CT is superior to morphological imaging for the detection of metastatic LNs in patients with primary prostate cancer. Surgical dissection remains the gold standard for precise lymphatic staging.
Authors: Jeffrey A Kolthammer; Kuan-Hao Su; Anu Grover; Manoj Narayanan; David W Jordan; Raymond F Muzic Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2014-06-23 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: S Hijazi; B Meller; C Leitsmann; A Strauss; J Meller; C O Ritter; J Lotz; H-U Schildhaus; L Trojan; C O Sahlmann Journal: Prostate Date: 2015-09-10 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Lars Budäus; Sami-Ramzi Leyh-Bannurah; Georg Salomon; Uwe Michl; Hans Heinzer; Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen; Thomas Steuber; Clemens Rosenbaum Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 20.096
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: Christina Bluemel; Fraenze Linke; Ken Herrmann; Iva Simunovic; Matthias Eiber; Christian Kestler; Andreas K Buck; Andreas Schirbel; Thorsten A Bley; Hans-Juergen Wester; Daniel Vergho; Axel Becker Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2016-10-26 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Frederik L Giesel; B Hadaschik; J Cardinale; J Radtke; M Vinsensia; W Lehnert; C Kesch; Y Tolstov; S Singer; N Grabe; S Duensing; M Schäfer; O C Neels; W Mier; U Haberkorn; K Kopka; C Kratochwil Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-11-26 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Florian Sterzing; Clemens Kratochwil; Hannah Fiedler; Sonja Katayama; Gregor Habl; Klaus Kopka; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Jürgen Debus; Uwe Haberkorn; Frederik L Giesel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jeremie Calais; Amar U Kishan; Minsong Cao; Wolfgang P Fendler; Matthias Eiber; Ken Herrmann; Francesco Ceci; Robert E Reiter; Matthew B Rettig; John V Hegde; Narek Shaverdian; Chris R King; Michael L Steinberg; Johannes Czernin; Nicholas G Nickols Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-04-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Lars J Petersen; Julie B Nielsen; Niels C Langkilde; Astrid Petersen; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Nandita M De Souza; Katja De Paepe; Rune V Fisker; Dennis T Arp; Jesper Carl; Uwe Haberkorn; Helle D Zacho Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-06-12 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Daniela A Ferraro; Helena I Garcia Schüler; Urs J Muehlematter; Daniel Eberli; Julian Müller; Alexander Müller; Roger Gablinger; Helmut Kranzbühler; Aurelius Omlin; Philipp A Kaufmann; Thomas Hermanns; Irene A Burger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-12-04 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: O Solyanik; B Schlenker; C Gratzke; B Ertl-Wagner; D A Clevert; C Stief; J Ricke; D Nörenberg Journal: Urologe A Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Simona Malaspina; Mikael Anttinen; Pekka Taimen; Ivan Jambor; Minna Sandell; Irina Rinta-Kiikka; Sami Kajander; Jukka Schildt; Ekaterina Saukko; Tommi Noponen; Jani Saunavaara; Peter B Dean; Roberto Blanco Sequeiros; Hannu J Aronen; Jukka Kemppainen; Marko Seppänen; Peter J Boström; Otto Ettala Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-03-13 Impact factor: 9.236