Louise Emmett1,2,3, Pim J van Leeuwen2, Rohan Nandurkar3, Matthijs J Scheltema2, Thomas Cusick2,4, George Hruby5,6, Andrew Kneebone4,6, Thomas Eade4,6, Gerald Fogarty6, Raj Jagavkar6, Quoc Nguyen2,4, Bao Ho3, Anthony M Joshua2, Phillip Stricker7,2. 1. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, St. Vincent's Public Hospital, Sydney, Australia emmetthruby@gmail.com. 2. The Garvan Institute of Medical Research/The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Sydney, Australia. 3. University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 4. Australian Prostate Cancer Research Centre, New South Wales, Australia. 5. Australian Prostate Cancer Research Centre, New South Wales, Australia emmetthruby@gmail.com. 6. Genesis Cancer Care, Sydney, Australia. 7. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, St. Vincent's Public Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
68Ga-PSMA (prostate-specific membrane antigen) PET/CT is increasingly used in men with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure after radical prostatectomy (RP) to triage those who will benefit from salvage radiation treatment (SRT). This study examines the value of PSMA-informed SRT in improving treatment outcomes in the context of biochemical failure after RP. Methods: We analyzed men with rising PSA after RP with PSA readings between 0.05 and 1.0 ng/mL, considered eligible for SRT at the time of PSMA. For each patient, clinical and pathologic features as well as scan results, including site of PSMA-positive disease, number of lesions, and a certainty score, were documented. Subsequent management, including SRT, and most recent PSA were recorded using medical records. Treatment response was defined as both PSA ≤ 0.1 ng/mL and >50% reduction in PSA. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed for association of clinical variables and treatment response to SRT. Results: One hundred sixty-four men were included. PSMA was positive in 62% (n = 102/164): 38 of 102 in the prostatic fossa, 41 of 102 in pelvic nodes, and 23 of 102 distantly. Twenty-four patients received androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and were excluded for outcomes analysis. In total, 99 of 146 received SRT with a median follow-up after radiation treatment of 10.5 mo (interquartile range, 6-14 mo). Overall treatment response after SRT was 72% (n = 71/99). Forty-five percent (n = 27/60) of patients with a negative PSMA underwent SRT whereas 55% (33/60) did not. In men with a negative PSMA who received SRT, 85% (n = 23/27) demonstrated a treatment response, compared with a further PSA increase in 65% (22/34) in those not treated. In 36 of 99 patients with disease confined to the prostate fossa on PSMA, 81% (n = 29/36) responded to SRT. In total, 26 of 99 men had nodal disease on PSMA, of whom 61% (n = 16/26) had treatment response after SRT. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, PSMA and serum PSA significantly correlated with treatment response, whereas pT stage, Gleason score, and surgical margin status did not. Conclusion: PSMA PET is independently predictive of treatment response to SRT and stratifies men into a high treatment response to SRT (negative or fossa-confined PSMA) versus men with poor response to SRT (nodes or distant-disease PSMA). In particular, a negative PSMA PET result predicts a high response to salvage fossa radiotherapy.
68Ga-PSMA (prostate-specific membrane antigen) PET/CT is increasingly used in men with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure after radical prostatectomy (RP) to triage those who will benefit from salvage radiation treatment (SRT). This study examines the value of PSMA-informed SRT in improving treatment outcomes in the context of biochemical failure after RP. Methods: We analyzed men with rising PSA after RP with PSA readings between 0.05 and 1.0 ng/mL, considered eligible for SRT at the time of PSMA. For each patient, clinical and pathologic features as well as scan results, including site of PSMA-positive disease, number of lesions, and a certainty score, were documented. Subsequent management, including SRT, and most recent PSA were recorded using medical records. Treatment response was defined as both PSA ≤ 0.1 ng/mL and >50% reduction in PSA. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed for association of clinical variables and treatment response to SRT. Results: One hundred sixty-four men were included. PSMA was positive in 62% (n = 102/164): 38 of 102 in the prostatic fossa, 41 of 102 in pelvic nodes, and 23 of 102 distantly. Twenty-four patients received androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and were excluded for outcomes analysis. In total, 99 of 146 received SRT with a median follow-up after radiation treatment of 10.5 mo (interquartile range, 6-14 mo). Overall treatment response after SRT was 72% (n = 71/99). Forty-five percent (n = 27/60) of patients with a negative PSMA underwent SRT whereas 55% (33/60) did not. In men with a negative PSMA who received SRT, 85% (n = 23/27) demonstrated a treatment response, compared with a further PSA increase in 65% (22/34) in those not treated. In 36 of 99 patients with disease confined to the prostate fossa on PSMA, 81% (n = 29/36) responded to SRT. In total, 26 of 99 men had nodal disease on PSMA, of whom 61% (n = 16/26) had treatment response after SRT. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, PSMA and serum PSA significantly correlated with treatment response, whereas pT stage, Gleason score, and surgical margin status did not. Conclusion:PSMA PET is independently predictive of treatment response to SRT and stratifies men into a high treatment response to SRT (negative or fossa-confined PSMA) versus men with poor response to SRT (nodes or distant-disease PSMA). In particular, a negative PSMA PET result predicts a high response to salvage fossa radiotherapy.
Authors: Simona Malaspina; Ugo De Giorgi; Jukka Kemppainen; Angelo Del Sole; Giovanni Paganelli Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2018-08-16 Impact factor: 3.469
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: Juanita M Crook; Peixin Zhang; Thomas M Pisansky; Edouard J Trabulsi; Mahul B Amin; William Bice; Gerard Morton; Nadeem Pervez; Eric Vigneault; Charles Catton; Jeff Michalski; Mack Roach; David Beyer; Ashesh Jani; Eric Horwitz; Viroon Donavanik; Howard Sandler Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-10-09 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Liza Lindenberg; Esther Mena; Baris Turkbey; Joanna H Shih; Sarah E Reese; Stephanie A Harmon; Ilhan Lim; Frank Lin; Anita Ton; Yolanda L McKinney; Philip Eclarinal; Deborah E Citrin; William Dahut; Ravi Madan; Bradford J Wood; Venkatesh Krishnasamy; Richard Chang; Elliot Levy; Peter Pinto; Janet F Eary; Peter L Choyke Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-07-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Andrei Fodor; Andrea Lancia; Francesco Ceci; Maria Picchio; Morten Hoyer; Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa; Piet Ost; Paolo Castellucci; Elena Incerti; Nadia Di Muzio; Gianluca Ingrosso Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-05-11 Impact factor: 4.226
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