Paul J Roach1,2,3, Roslyn Francis2,4,5, Louise Emmett6,7, Edward Hsiao8, Andrew Kneebone8,3, George Hruby8,3, Thomas Eade8,3, Quoc A Nguyen9,10, Benjamin D Thompson9,10, Thomas Cusick9,10, Michael McCarthy11, Colin Tang4,5, Bao Ho12, Philip D Stricker9,12, Andrew M Scott2,13,14,15. 1. Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia paul.roach@sydney.edu.au. 2. Australasian Radiopharmaceutical Trials Network, Sydney, Australia. 3. University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 4. University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia. 5. Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Australia. 6. St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 7. University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 8. Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 9. The Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, Australia. 10. Australian Prostate Cancer Research Centre-New South Wales (APCRC-NSW), Sydney, Australia. 11. Fiona Stanley Hospital, Perth, Australia. 12. St Vincent's Prostate Cancer Centre, Sydney, Australia. 13. Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. 14. Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, and School of Cancer Medicine, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia; and. 15. University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
68Ga-PSMA PET/CT scanning has been shown to be more sensitive than conventional imaging techniques in patients with prostate cancer. This prospective Australian multicenter study assessed whether 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT imaging affects management intent in patients with primary or recurrent prostate cancer. Methods: Before undertaking 68Ga-PSMA PET imaging, referring medical specialists completed a questionnaire detailing relevant demographic and clinical data as well as their proposed management plan. A separate follow-up questionnaire was completed after the 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT scan results were available to determine whether the management plan would change. Results: A total of 431 patients with prostate cancer from 4 Australian centers had pre- and post-68Ga-PSMA management plans completed. Scans were obtained for primary staging of intermediate- and high-risk disease in 25% of patients and for restaging/biochemical recurrence in 75% of patients. Overall, 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT scanning led to a change in planned management in 51% of patients. The impact was greater in the group of patients with biochemical failure after definitive surgery or radiation treatment (62% change in management intent) than in patients undergoing primary staging (21% change). Imaging with 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT revealed unsuspected disease in the prostate bed in 27% of patients, locoregional lymph nodes in 39%, and distant metastatic disease in 16%. Conclusion: 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT scans detect previously unsuspected disease and may influence planned clinical management in a high proportion of patients with prostate cancer. The impact was greater in patients with biochemical recurrence. These results demonstrate the potential clinical value of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in management of prostate cancer.
68Ga-PSMA PET/CT scanning has been shown to be more sensitive than conventional imaging techniques in patients with prostate cancer. This prospective Australian multicenter study assessed whether 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT imaging affects management intent in patients with primary or recurrent prostate cancer. Methods: Before undertaking 68Ga-PSMA PET imaging, referring medical specialists completed a questionnaire detailing relevant demographic and clinical data as well as their proposed management plan. A separate follow-up questionnaire was completed after the 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT scan results were available to determine whether the management plan would change. Results: A total of 431 patients with prostate cancer from 4 Australian centers had pre- and post-68Ga-PSMA management plans completed. Scans were obtained for primary staging of intermediate- and high-risk disease in 25% of patients and for restaging/biochemical recurrence in 75% of patients. Overall, 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT scanning led to a change in planned management in 51% of patients. The impact was greater in the group of patients with biochemical failure after definitive surgery or radiation treatment (62% change in management intent) than in patients undergoing primary staging (21% change). Imaging with 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT revealed unsuspected disease in the prostate bed in 27% of patients, locoregional lymph nodes in 39%, and distant metastatic disease in 16%. Conclusion: 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT scans detect previously unsuspected disease and may influence planned clinical management in a high proportion of patients with prostate cancer. The impact was greater in patients with biochemical recurrence. These results demonstrate the potential clinical value of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in management of prostate cancer.
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Marcin Czarniecki; Joanna H Shih; Stephanie A Harmon; Piyush K Agarwal; Andrea B Apolo; Deborah E Citrin; James L Gulley; Mukesh Harisinghani; Ravi A Madan; Adam R Metwalli; Edmond Paquette; Peter A Pinto; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Lindsay S Rowe; Bradford J Wood; Paula M Jacobs; Liza Lindenberg; William Dahut; Peter L Choyke Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2019-10-15 Impact factor: 3.959
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: Mack Roach; Jennifer Moughan; Colleen A F Lawton; Adam P Dicker; Kenneth L Zeitzer; Elizabeth M Gore; Young Kwok; Michael J Seider; I-Chow Hsu; Alan C Hartford; Eric M Horwitz; Kosj Yamoah; Christopher U Jones; Jeff M Michalski; W Robert Lee; Thomas M Pisansky; Rachel Rabinovitch; Marvin Rotman; Rodger M Pryzant; Harold E Kim; Charles R Thomas; William U Shipley; Howard M Sandler Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2018-10-10 Impact factor: 41.316
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: 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