Michael A Gorin1, Steven P Rowe2, Hiten D Patel3, Igor Vidal4, Margarita Mana-Ay3, Mehrbod S Javadi2, Lilja B Solnes2, Ashley E Ross3, Edward M Schaeffer5, Trinity J Bivalacqua3, Alan W Partin3, Kenneth J Pienta3, Zsolt Szabo2, Angelo M De Marzo4, Martin G Pomper2, Mohamad E Allaf3. 1. The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; Department of Urology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. Electronic address: mgorin1@jhmi.edu. 2. The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; Department of Urology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 4. Department of Pathology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 5. Department of Urology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We prospectively evaluated the diagnostic performance of prostate specific membrane antigen targeted 18F-DCFPyL positron emission tomography/computerized tomography in the preoperative staging of men at high risk for harboring metastatic prostate cancer despite a negative conventional staging evaluation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men with clinically localized high or very high risk prostate cancer were imaged with 18F-DCFPyL positron emission tomography/computerized tomography before undergoing radical prostatectomy with standardized pelvic lymph node dissection. The scans were interpreted by 2 blinded nuclear medicine readers and assessed for interreader variability as well as diagnostic accuracy for pelvic lymph node staging. Surgical pathology served as the reference standard to which 18F-DCFPyL scan findings were compared. RESULTS: A total of 25 men contributed analyzable data to this study. Seven of these patients (28%) were found to have 1 or more positive lymph nodes on surgical pathology. Sites of radiotracer uptake were identified in the prostate of all imaged patients. The 2 readers identified the same number of prostatic lesions in 22 patients (88%), of whom all had at least 1 intraprostatic lesion in common between the 2 reads. Additionally, the readers assigned the same N stage to 46 of 50 individual lymph node packets (92%). Following reconciliation of the relatively few discordant imaging reads, 7 patients (28%) were found to have 1 or more sites of radiotracer uptake in the pelvis consistent with N1 disease, resulting in 71.4% sensitivity (95% CI 29.0-96.3) and 88.9% specificity (95% CI 65.3-98.6). Analysis at the level of individual nodal packets resulted in 66.7% sensitivity (95% CI 29.9-92.5) and 92.7% specificity (95% CI 80.1-98.5). Three men (12%) had evidence of M1a disease. CONCLUSIONS: 18F-DCFPyL positron emission tomography/computerized tomography allowed for accurate detection of prostate cancer sites in men believed to have clinically localized disease based on conventional imaging. Our results support the need for a larger study to more precisely define the diagnostic accuracy of this novel molecular imaging test.
PURPOSE: We prospectively evaluated the diagnostic performance of prostate specific membrane antigen targeted 18F-DCFPyL positron emission tomography/computerized tomography in the preoperative staging of men at high risk for harboring metastatic prostate cancer despite a negative conventional staging evaluation. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Men with clinically localized high or very high risk prostate cancer were imaged with 18F-DCFPyL positron emission tomography/computerized tomography before undergoing radical prostatectomy with standardized pelvic lymph node dissection. The scans were interpreted by 2 blinded nuclear medicine readers and assessed for interreader variability as well as diagnostic accuracy for pelvic lymph node staging. Surgical pathology served as the reference standard to which 18F-DCFPyL scan findings were compared. RESULTS: A total of 25 men contributed analyzable data to this study. Seven of these patients (28%) were found to have 1 or more positive lymph nodes on surgical pathology. Sites of radiotracer uptake were identified in the prostate of all imaged patients. The 2 readers identified the same number of prostatic lesions in 22 patients (88%), of whom all had at least 1 intraprostatic lesion in common between the 2 reads. Additionally, the readers assigned the same N stage to 46 of 50 individual lymph node packets (92%). Following reconciliation of the relatively few discordant imaging reads, 7 patients (28%) were found to have 1 or more sites of radiotracer uptake in the pelvis consistent with N1 disease, resulting in 71.4% sensitivity (95% CI 29.0-96.3) and 88.9% specificity (95% CI 65.3-98.6). Analysis at the level of individual nodal packets resulted in 66.7% sensitivity (95% CI 29.9-92.5) and 92.7% specificity (95% CI 80.1-98.5). Three men (12%) had evidence of M1a disease. CONCLUSIONS:18F-DCFPyL positron emission tomography/computerized tomography allowed for accurate detection of prostate cancer sites in men believed to have clinically localized disease based on conventional imaging. Our results support the need for a larger study to more precisely define the diagnostic accuracy of this novel molecular imaging test.
Authors: Ying Chen; Mrudula Pullambhatla; Catherine A Foss; Youngjoo Byun; Sridhar Nimmagadda; Srinivasan Senthamizhchelvan; George Sgouros; Ronnie C Mease; Martin G Pomper Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-10-31 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Wolfgang Peter Fendler; Jeremie Calais; Martin Allen-Auerbach; Christina Bluemel; Nina Eberhardt; Louise Emmett; Pawan Gupta; Markus Hartenbach; Thomas A Hope; Shozo Okamoto; Christian Helmut Pfob; Thorsten D Pöppel; Christoph Rischpler; Sarah Schwarzenböck; Vanessa Stebner; Marcus Unterrainer; Helle D Zacho; Tobias Maurer; Christian Gratzke; Alexander Crispin; Johannes Czernin; Ken Herrmann; Matthias Eiber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ian Thompson; James Brantley Thrasher; Gunnar Aus; Arthur L Burnett; Edith D Canby-Hagino; Michael S Cookson; Anthony V D'Amico; Roger R Dmochowski; David T Eton; Jeffrey D Forman; S Larry Goldenberg; Javier Hernandez; Celestia S Higano; Stephen R Kraus; Judd W Moul; Catherine M Tangen Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Zsolt Szabo; Esther Mena; Steven P Rowe; Donika Plyku; Rosa Nidal; Mario A Eisenberger; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Hong Fan; Robert F Dannals; Ying Chen; Ronnie C Mease; Melin Vranesic; Akrita Bhatnagar; George Sgouros; Steve Y Cho; Martin G Pomper Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Steven P Rowe; Alexander Drzezga; Bernd Neumaier; Markus Dietlein; Michael A Gorin; Michael R Zalutsky; Martin G Pomper Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Cyril Barinka; Youngjoo Byun; Crystal L Dusich; Sangeeta R Banerjee; Ying Chen; Mark Castanares; Alan P Kozikowski; Ronnie C Mease; Martin G Pomper; Jacek Lubkowski Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2008-12-25 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Markus Dietlein; Carsten Kobe; Georg Kuhnert; Simone Stockter; Thomas Fischer; Klaus Schomäcker; Matthias Schmidt; Felix Dietlein; Boris D Zlatopolskiy; Philipp Krapf; Raphael Richarz; Stephan Neubauer; Alexander Drzezga; Bernd Neumaier Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.488
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: Mehrdad Alemozaffar; Akinyemi A Akintayo; Olayinka A Abiodun-Ojo; Dattatraya Patil; Faisal Saeed; Yijian Huang; Adeboye O Osunkoya; Mark M Goodman; Martin Sanda; David M Schuster Journal: J Urol Date: 2020-04-29 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ingrid J G Burvenich; Sagun Parakh; Adam C Parslow; Sze Ting Lee; Hui K Gan; Andrew M Scott Journal: AAPS J Date: 2018-03-08 Impact factor: 4.009
Authors: Sonia Gaur; Esther Mena; Stephanie A Harmon; Maria L Lindenberg; Stephen Adler; Anita T Ton; Joanna H Shih; Sherif Mehralivand; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Ronnie C Mease; Martin G Pomper; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2020-07-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Katherine A Zukotynski; Urban Emmenegger; Sebastien Hotte; Anil Kapoor; Wei Fu; Amanda L Blackford; John Valliant; François Bénard; Chun K Kim; Mark C Markowski; Mario A Eisenberger; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Kenneth J Pienta; Michael A Gorin; Matthew Lubanovic; Jihyun Kim; Martin G Pomper; Steve Y Cho; Steven P Rowe Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 10.057