Kilian Schiller1, K Sauter2, S Dewes2, M Eiber3,4, T Maurer5, J Gschwend5, S E Combs2,6, G Habl2,6. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. kilian.schiller@mri.tum.de. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technical University Munich (TUM), Munich, Germany. 4. Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 5. Department of Urology, Technical University Munich (TUM), Munich, Germany. 6. Department of Radiation Sciences (DRS), Institute of Innovative Radiotherapy (iRT), Helmholtz Zentrum München, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Salvage radiotherapy (SRT) after radical prostatectomy (RPE) and lymphadenectomy (LAE) is the appropriate radiotherapy option for patients with persistent/ recurrent prostate cancer (PC). 68Ga-PSMA-PET imaging has been shown to accurately detect PC lesions in a primary setting as well as for local recurrence or for lymph node (LN) metastases. OBJECTIVE: In this study we evaluated the patterns of recurrence after RPE in patients with PC, putting a highlight on the differentiation between sites that would have been covered by a standard radiation therapy (RT) field in consensus after the RTOG consensus and others that would have not. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-one out of 83 patients (37%) with high-risk PC were the subject of our study. Information from 68Ga-PSMA-PET imaging was used to individualize treatment plans to include suspicious lesions as well as possibly boost sites with tracer uptake in LN or the prostate bed. For evaluation, 68Ga-PSMA-PET-positive LN were contoured in a patient dataset with a standard lymph drainage (RTOG consensus on CTV definition of pelvic lymph nodes) radiation field depicting color-coded nodes that would have been infield or outfield of that standard lymph drainage field and thereby visualizing typical patterns of failure of a "blind" radiation therapy after RPE and LAE. RESULTS: Compared to negative conventional imaging (CT/MRI), lesions suspicious for PC were detected in 27/31 cases (87.1%) by 68Ga-PSMA-PET imaging, which resulted in changes to the radiation concept. There were 16/31 patients (51.6%) that received a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to a subarea of the prostate bed (in only three cases this dose escalation would have been planned without the additional knowledge of 68Ga-PSMA-PET imaging) and 18/31 (58.1%) to uncommon (namely presacral, paravesical, pararectal, preacetabular and obturatoric) LN sites. Furthermore, 14 patients (45.2%) had a changed TNM staging result by means of 68Ga-PSMA-PET imaging. CONCLUSION: Compared to conventional CT or MRI staging, 68Ga-PSMA-PET imaging detects more PC lesions and, thus, significantly influences radiation planning in recurrent prostate cancer patients enabling individually tailored treatment.
BACKGROUND: Salvage radiotherapy (SRT) after radical prostatectomy (RPE) and lymphadenectomy (LAE) is the appropriate radiotherapy option for patients with persistent/ recurrent prostate cancer (PC). 68Ga-PSMA-PET imaging has been shown to accurately detect PC lesions in a primary setting as well as for local recurrence or for lymph node (LN) metastases. OBJECTIVE: In this study we evaluated the patterns of recurrence after RPE in patients with PC, putting a highlight on the differentiation between sites that would have been covered by a standard radiation therapy (RT) field in consensus after the RTOG consensus and others that would have not. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-one out of 83 patients (37%) with high-risk PC were the subject of our study. Information from 68Ga-PSMA-PET imaging was used to individualize treatment plans to include suspicious lesions as well as possibly boost sites with tracer uptake in LN or the prostate bed. For evaluation, 68Ga-PSMA-PET-positive LN were contoured in a patient dataset with a standard lymph drainage (RTOG consensus on CTV definition of pelvic lymph nodes) radiation field depicting color-coded nodes that would have been infield or outfield of that standard lymph drainage field and thereby visualizing typical patterns of failure of a "blind" radiation therapy after RPE and LAE. RESULTS: Compared to negative conventional imaging (CT/MRI), lesions suspicious for PC were detected in 27/31 cases (87.1%) by 68Ga-PSMA-PET imaging, which resulted in changes to the radiation concept. There were 16/31 patients (51.6%) that received a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to a subarea of the prostate bed (in only three cases this dose escalation would have been planned without the additional knowledge of 68Ga-PSMA-PET imaging) and 18/31 (58.1%) to uncommon (namely presacral, paravesical, pararectal, preacetabular and obturatoric) LN sites. Furthermore, 14 patients (45.2%) had a changed TNM staging result by means of 68Ga-PSMA-PET imaging. CONCLUSION: Compared to conventional CT or MRI staging, 68Ga-PSMA-PET imaging detects more PC lesions and, thus, significantly influences radiation planning in recurrent prostate cancerpatients enabling individually tailored treatment.
Authors: William U Shipley; Wendy Seiferheld; Himanshu R Lukka; Pierre P Major; Niall M Heney; David J Grignon; Oliver Sartor; Maltibehn P Patel; Jean-Paul Bahary; Anthony L Zietman; Thomas M Pisansky; Kenneth L Zeitzer; Colleen A F Lawton; Felix Y Feng; Richard D Lovett; Alexander G Balogh; Luis Souhami; Seth A Rosenthal; Kevin J Kerlin; James J Dignam; Stephanie L Pugh; Howard M Sandler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-02-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: P Iversen; C J Tyrrell; A V Kaisary; J B Anderson; L Baert; T Tammela; M Chamberlain; K Carroll; K Gotting-Smith; G R Blackledge Journal: Urology Date: 1998-03 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: M M Morris; K C Dallow; A L Zietman; J Park; A Althausen; N M Heney; W U Shipley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1997-07-01 Impact factor: 7.038
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: C J Tyrrell; A V Kaisary; P Iversen; J B Anderson; L Baert; T Tammela; M Chamberlain; A Webster; G Blackledge Journal: Eur Urol Date: 1998 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: David Pfister; Michel Bolla; Alberto Briganti; Peter Carroll; Cesare Cozzarini; Steven Joniau; Hein van Poppel; Mack Roach; Andrew Stephenson; Thomas Wiegel; Michael J Zelefsky Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-08-15 Impact factor: 20.096
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: 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: Jeremie Calais; Johannes Czernin; Minsong Cao; Amar U Kishan; John V Hegde; Narek Shaverdian; Kiri Sandler; Fang-I Chu; Chris R King; Michael L Steinberg; Isabel Rauscher; Nina-Sophie Schmidt-Hegemann; Thorsten Poeppel; Philipp Hetkamp; Francesco Ceci; Ken Herrmann; Wolfgang P Fendler; Matthias Eiber; Nicholas G Nickols Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Stefan A Koerber; Leon Will; Clemens Kratochwil; Matthias F Haefner; Henrik Rathke; Christophe Kremer; Jonas Merkle; Klaus Herfarth; Klaus Kopka; Peter L Choyke; Tim Holland-Letz; Uwe Haberkorn; Juergen Debus; Frederik L Giesel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-07-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Nina-Sophie Schmidt-Hegemann; Wolfgang Peter Fendler; Alexander Buchner; Christian Stief; Paul Rogowski; Maximilian Niyazi; Chukwuka Eze; Minglun Li; Peter Bartenstein; Claus Belka; Ute Ganswindt Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-11-10 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Sebastian Zschaeck; Fabian Lohaus; Marcus Beck; Gregor Habl; Stephanie Kroeze; Constantinos Zamboglou; Stefan Alexander Koerber; Jürgen Debus; Tobias Hölscher; Peter Wust; Ute Ganswindt; Alexander D J Baur; Klaus Zöphel; Nikola Cihoric; Matthias Guckenberger; Stephanie E Combs; Anca Ligia Grosu; Pirus Ghadjar; Claus Belka Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-05-11 Impact factor: 3.481