Jeremie Calais1, Johannes Czernin2, Minsong Cao3, Amar U Kishan3, John V Hegde3, Narek Shaverdian3, Kiri Sandler3, Fang-I Chu3, Chris R King3, Michael L Steinberg3, Isabel Rauscher4, Nina-Sophie Schmidt-Hegemann5, Thorsten Poeppel6, Philipp Hetkamp6, Francesco Ceci2, Ken Herrmann2,6, Wolfgang P Fendler2,7, Matthias Eiber2,4, Nicholas G Nickols3,8. 1. Ahmanson Translational Imaging Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, UCLA, Los Angeles, California jcalais@mednet.ucla.edu. 2. Ahmanson Translational Imaging Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, UCLA, Los Angeles, California. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, UCLA, Los Angeles, California. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany. 6. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Germany. 7. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany; and. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California.
Abstract
Target volume delineations for prostate cancer (PCa) salvage radiotherapy (SRT) after radical prostatectomy are usually drawn in the absence of visibly recurrent disease. 68Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA-11) PET/CT detects recurrent PCa with sensitivity superior to standard-of-care imaging at serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values low enough to affect target volume delineations for routine SRT. Our objective was to map the recurrence pattern of PCa early biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy with 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in patients with serum PSA levels of less than 1 ng/mL, determine how often consensus clinical target volumes (CTVs) based on the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) guidelines cover 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT-defined disease, and assess the potential impact of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT on SRT. Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of an intention-to-treat population of 270 patients who underwent 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT at 4 institutions for BCR after prostatectomy without prior radiotherapy at a PSA level of less than 1 ng/mL. RTOG consensus CTVs that included both the prostate bed and the pelvic lymph nodes were contoured on the CT dataset of the PET/CT image by a radiation oncologist masked to the PET component. 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT images were analyzed by a nuclear medicine physician. 68Ga-PSMA-11-positive lesions not covered by planning volumes based on the consensus CTVs were considered to have a potential major impact on treatment planning. Results: The median PSA level at the time of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT was 0.48 ng/mL (range, 0.03-1 ng/mL). One hundred thirty-two of 270 patients (49%) had a positive 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT result. Fifty-two of 270 (19%) had at least one PSMA-11-positive lesion not covered by the consensus CTVs. Thirty-three of 270 (12%) had extrapelvic PSMA-11-positive lesions, and 19 of 270 (7%) had PSMA-11-positive lesions within the pelvis but not covered by the consensus CTVs. The 2 most common 68Ga-PSMA-11-positive lesion locations outside the consensus CTVs were bone (23/52, 44%) and perirectal lymph nodes (16/52, 31%). Conclusion: Post hoc analysis of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT implied a major impact on SRT planning in 52 of 270 patients (19%) with PCa early BCR (PSA < 1.0 ng/mL). This finding justifies a randomized imaging trial of SRT with or without 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT investigating its potential benefit on clinical outcome.
Target volume delineations for prostate cancer (PCa) salvage radiotherapy (SRT) after radical prostatectomy are usually drawn in the absence of visibly recurrent disease. 68Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA-11) PET/CT detects recurrent PCa with sensitivity superior to standard-of-care imaging at serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values low enough to affect target volume delineations for routine SRT. Our objective was to map the recurrence pattern of PCa early biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy with 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in patients with serum PSA levels of less than 1 ng/mL, determine how often consensus clinical target volumes (CTVs) based on the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) guidelines cover 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT-defined disease, and assess the potential impact of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT on SRT. Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of an intention-to-treat population of 270 patients who underwent 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT at 4 institutions for BCR after prostatectomy without prior radiotherapy at a PSA level of less than 1 ng/mL. RTOG consensus CTVs that included both the prostate bed and the pelvic lymph nodes were contoured on the CT dataset of the PET/CT image by a radiation oncologist masked to the PET component. 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT images were analyzed by a nuclear medicine physician. 68Ga-PSMA-11-positive lesions not covered by planning volumes based on the consensus CTVs were considered to have a potential major impact on treatment planning. Results: The median PSA level at the time of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT was 0.48 ng/mL (range, 0.03-1 ng/mL). One hundred thirty-two of 270 patients (49%) had a positive 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT result. Fifty-two of 270 (19%) had at least one PSMA-11-positive lesion not covered by the consensus CTVs. Thirty-three of 270 (12%) had extrapelvic PSMA-11-positive lesions, and 19 of 270 (7%) had PSMA-11-positive lesions within the pelvis but not covered by the consensus CTVs. The 2 most common 68Ga-PSMA-11-positive lesion locations outside the consensus CTVs were bone (23/52, 44%) and perirectal lymph nodes (16/52, 31%). Conclusion: Post hoc analysis of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT implied a major impact on SRT planning in 52 of 270 patients (19%) with PCa early BCR (PSA < 1.0 ng/mL). This finding justifies a randomized imaging trial of SRT with or without 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT investigating its potential benefit on clinical outcome.
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: Drew Moghanaki; Bridget F Koontz; Jeremy D Karlin; Wen Wan; Nitai Mukhopadhay; Michael P Hagan; Mitchell S Anscher Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-06-26 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sarah M Schwarzenboeck; Isabel Rauscher; Christina Bluemel; Wolfgang P Fendler; Steven P Rowe; Martin G Pomper; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Ken Herrmann; Matthias Eiber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-07-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jonathan L Muldermans; Lindsay B Romak; Eugene D Kwon; Sean S Park; Kenneth R Olivier Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-01-29 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Andrew J Stephenson; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan; Thomas M Pisansky; Kevin M Slawin; Eric A Klein; Mitchell S Anscher; Jeff M Michalski; Howard M Sandler; Daniel W Lin; Jeffrey D Forman; Michael J Zelefsky; Larry L Kestin; Claus G Roehrborn; Charles N Catton; Theodore L DeWeese; Stanley L Liauw; Richard K Valicenti; Deborah A Kuban; Alan Pollack Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-05-20 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Florian Sterzing; Clemens Kratochwil; Hannah Fiedler; Sonja Katayama; Gregor Habl; Klaus Kopka; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Jürgen Debus; Uwe Haberkorn; Frederik L Giesel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Rudolf A Werner; Ralph A Bundschuh; Lena Bundschuh; Mehrbod S Javadi; Jeffrey P Leal; Takahiro Higuchi; Kenneth J Pienta; Andreas K Buck; Martin G Pomper; Michael A Gorin; Constantin Lapa; Steven P Rowe Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-09-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Antonino Battaglia; Gaëtan Devos; Karel Decaestecker; Manuel Witters; Lisa Moris; Thomas Van den Broeck; Charlien Berghen; Wouter Everaerts; Maarten Albersen; Arman Tsaturyan; Gert De Meerleer; Hein Van Poppel; Karolien Goffin; Piet Ost; Lorenzo Tosco; Steven Joniau Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-03-12 Impact factor: 4.226
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: 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