Benedikt Kranzbühler1, Hannes Nagel2, Anton S Becker3, Julian Müller2, Martin Huellner2, Paul Stolzmann2, Urs Muehlematter2, Matthias Guckenberger4, Philipp A Kaufmann2, Daniel Eberli1, Irene A Burger5. 1. Department of Urology, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zürich, Switzerland. 3. Department of Radiology, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zürich, Switzerland. Irene.burger@usz.ch.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Sensitive visualization of recurrent prostate cancer foci is a challenge in patients with early biochemical recurrence (EBR). The recently established 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT has significantly improved the detection rate with published values of up to 55% for patients with a serum PSA concentration between 0.2-0.5 ng/mL. The increased soft tissue contrast in the pelvis using simultaneous 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI might further improve the detection rate in patients with EBR and low PSA values over PET/CT. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 56 consecutive patients who underwent a 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI for biochemical recurrence in our institution between April and December 2016 with three readers. Median PSA level was 0.99 ng/mL (interquartile range: 3.1 ng/mL). Detection of PSMA-positive lesions within the prostate fossa, local and distant lymph nodes, bones, or visceral organs was recorded. Agreement among observers was evaluated with Fleiss's kappa (k). RESULTS: Overall, in 44 of 56 patients (78.6%) PSMA-positive lesions were detected. In four of nine patients (44.4%) with a PSA < 0.2 ng/mL, suspicious lesions were detected (two pelvic and one paraaortic lymph nodes, and two bone metastases). In eight of 11 patients (72.7%) with a PSA between 0.2 and < 0.5 ng/mL, suspicious lesions were detected (two local recurrences, six lymph nodes, and one bone metastasis). Five out of 20 patients with a PSA < 0.5 ng/mL had extrapelvic disease. In 12 of 15 patients (80.0%) with a PSA between 0.5 and < 2.0 ng/mL, suspicious lesions were detected (four local recurrences, nine lymph nodes, and four bone metastases). In 20 of 21 patients (95.2%) with a PSA >2.0 ng/mL, suspicious lesions were detected. The overall interreader agreement for cancer detection was excellent (κ = 0.796, CI 0.645-0.947). CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI has a high detection rate for recurrent prostate cancer even at very low PSA levels <0.5 ng/mL. Furthermore, even at those low levels extrapelvic disease can be localized in 25% of the cases and local recurrence alone is seen only in 10%.
PURPOSE: Sensitive visualization of recurrent prostate cancer foci is a challenge in patients with early biochemical recurrence (EBR). The recently established 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT has significantly improved the detection rate with published values of up to 55% for patients with a serum PSA concentration between 0.2-0.5 ng/mL. The increased soft tissue contrast in the pelvis using simultaneous 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI might further improve the detection rate in patients with EBR and low PSA values over PET/CT. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 56 consecutive patients who underwent a 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI for biochemical recurrence in our institution between April and December 2016 with three readers. Median PSA level was 0.99 ng/mL (interquartile range: 3.1 ng/mL). Detection of PSMA-positive lesions within the prostate fossa, local and distant lymph nodes, bones, or visceral organs was recorded. Agreement among observers was evaluated with Fleiss's kappa (k). RESULTS: Overall, in 44 of 56 patients (78.6%) PSMA-positive lesions were detected. In four of nine patients (44.4%) with a PSA < 0.2 ng/mL, suspicious lesions were detected (two pelvic and one paraaortic lymph nodes, and two bone metastases). In eight of 11 patients (72.7%) with a PSA between 0.2 and < 0.5 ng/mL, suspicious lesions were detected (two local recurrences, six lymph nodes, and one bone metastasis). Five out of 20 patients with a PSA < 0.5 ng/mL had extrapelvic disease. In 12 of 15 patients (80.0%) with a PSA between 0.5 and < 2.0 ng/mL, suspicious lesions were detected (four local recurrences, nine lymph nodes, and four bone metastases). In 20 of 21 patients (95.2%) with a PSA >2.0 ng/mL, suspicious lesions were detected. The overall interreader agreement for cancer detection was excellent (κ = 0.796, CI 0.645-0.947). CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI has a high detection rate for recurrent prostate cancer even at very low PSA levels <0.5 ng/mL. Furthermore, even at those low levels extrapelvic disease can be localized in 25% of the cases and local recurrence alone is seen only in 10%.
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: Nicola L Robertson; Evis Sala; Matthias Benz; Jonathan Landa; Peter Scardino; Howard I Scher; Hedvig Hricak; Hebert A Vargas Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-02-16 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: A Afshar-Oromieh; U Haberkorn; H P Schlemmer; M Fenchel; M Eder; M Eisenhut; B A Hadaschik; A Kopp-Schneider; M Röthke Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-12-19 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Martin T Freitag; Jan P Radtke; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Matthias C Roethke; Boris A Hadaschik; Martin Gleave; David Bonekamp; Klaus Kopka; Matthias Eder; Thorsten Heusser; Marc Kachelriess; Kathrin Wieczorek; Christos Sachpekidis; Paul Flechsig; Frederik Giesel; Markus Hohenfellner; Uwe Haberkorn; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; A Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-12-17 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: G L Wright; B M Grob; C Haley; K Grossman; K Newhall; D Petrylak; J Troyer; A Konchuba; P F Schellhammer; R Moriarty Journal: Urology Date: 1996-08 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Henrik Hetzheim; Wolfgang Kübler; Clemens Kratochwil; Frederik L Giesel; Thomas A Hope; Matthias Eder; Michael Eisenhut; Klaus Kopka; Uwe Haberkorn Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Sanoj Punnen; Matthew R Cooperberg; Anthony V D'Amico; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Judd W Moul; Howard I Scher; Thorsten Schlomm; Stephen J Freedland Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-05-16 Impact factor: 20.096
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: Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Tim Holland-Letz; Frederik L Giesel; Clemens Kratochwil; Walter Mier; Sabine Haufe; Nils Debus; Matthias Eder; Michael Eisenhut; Martin Schäfer; Oliver Neels; Markus Hohenfellner; Klaus Kopka; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Jürgen Debus; Uwe Haberkorn Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Verane Achard; Giorgio Lamanna; Antoine Denis; Thomas De Perrot; Ismini Charis Mainta; Osman Ratib; Christophe Iselin; Raymond Miralbell; Valentina Garibotto; Thomas Zilli Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2019-06-12 Impact factor: 3.064
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: 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: 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: Barbara J Amorim; Vinay Prabhu; Sara S Marco; Debra Gervais; Willian E Palmer; Pedram Heidari; Mark Vangel; Philip J Saylor; Onofrio A Catalano Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-09-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Daniela A Ferraro; Urs J Muehlematter; Helena I Garcia Schüler; Niels J Rupp; Martin Huellner; Michael Messerli; Jan Hendrik Rüschoff; Edwin E G W Ter Voert; Thomas Hermanns; Irene A Burger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-09-14 Impact factor: 9.236