Sandeep K Gupta1, Tahne Watson2, Jim Denham3, Thomas P Shakespeare4, Natalie Rutherford5, Nicholas McLeod6, Kevin Picton5, Paul Ainsworth7, Tony Bonaventura8, Jarad M Martin3. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine & PET, John Hunter and Calvary Mater Hospitals, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia; University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia. Electronic address: Sandeep.Gupta@hnehealth.nsw.gov.au. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine & PET, John Hunter and Calvary Mater Hospitals, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia. 3. University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia; Department of Radiation Oncology, Calvary Mater Hospital, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia. 4. Radiation Oncology, Mid North Coast Cancer Institute and University of New South Wales Rural Clinical School, Coffs Harbour, New South Wales, Australia. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine & PET, John Hunter and Calvary Mater Hospitals, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia; University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia. 6. Department of Urology, John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia. 7. Department of Urology, John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia; Hunter Urology, Hamilton, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia. 8. University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia; Department of Medical Oncology, Calvary Mater Hospital, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-avid distribution of prostate cancer (PC) on positron emission tomography (PET), both at the time of initial diagnosis and at the time of relapse after definitive local treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 179 PSMA PET scans in patients with nil or ≤3 lesions on conventional imaging were retrospectively categorized into 3 subgroups: group A, high-risk PC with no prior definitive therapy (n=34); group B, prior prostatectomy (n=75); and group C, prior radiation therapy (n=70). The numbers and locations of the PSMA-avid lesions were mapped. The PSMA-positive lesions were identified subjectively by a nuclear medicine physician on the basis of clinical experience and taking into account the recent literature and artefacts. RESULTS: A total of 893 PSMA-avid lesions were identified; at least 1 lesion was detected in 80% of all scans. A high detection rate was present even at very low serum PSA levels (eg, at PSA ≤0.20 ng/mL in group B, the detection rate was 46%). Thirty-eight percent of studies revealed extrapelvic disease (41%, 31%, and 46% in groups A, B, and C, respectively). Almost one-third of all studies showed only oligometastases (24%, 36%, and 31% in groups A, B, and C, respectively). A large proportion of these (40%) were a solitary lesion. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET demonstrated a large number of otherwise unknown metastatic lesions. Therefore we recommend PSMA PET for more accurate assessment of disease burden in initial staging of high-risk PC, as well as for restaging in patients with prostate-specific antigen relapse after primary therapies. Furthermore, a high proportion of oligometastases on PSMA PET provides a prime opportunity to investigate the role of targeted local therapies for oligometastatic PCs. Crown
PURPOSE: To explore the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-avid distribution of prostate cancer (PC) on positron emission tomography (PET), both at the time of initial diagnosis and at the time of relapse after definitive local treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 179 PSMA PET scans in patients with nil or ≤3 lesions on conventional imaging were retrospectively categorized into 3 subgroups: group A, high-risk PC with no prior definitive therapy (n=34); group B, prior prostatectomy (n=75); and group C, prior radiation therapy (n=70). The numbers and locations of the PSMA-avid lesions were mapped. The PSMA-positive lesions were identified subjectively by a nuclear medicine physician on the basis of clinical experience and taking into account the recent literature and artefacts. RESULTS: A total of 893 PSMA-avid lesions were identified; at least 1 lesion was detected in 80% of all scans. A high detection rate was present even at very low serum PSA levels (eg, at PSA ≤0.20 ng/mL in group B, the detection rate was 46%). Thirty-eight percent of studies revealed extrapelvic disease (41%, 31%, and 46% in groups A, B, and C, respectively). Almost one-third of all studies showed only oligometastases (24%, 36%, and 31% in groups A, B, and C, respectively). A large proportion of these (40%) were a solitary lesion. CONCLUSIONS:Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET demonstrated a large number of otherwise unknown metastatic lesions. Therefore we recommend PSMA PET for more accurate assessment of disease burden in initial staging of high-risk PC, as well as for restaging in patients with prostate-specific antigen relapse after primary therapies. Furthermore, a high proportion of oligometastases on PSMA PET provides a prime opportunity to investigate the role of targeted local therapies for oligometastatic PCs. Crown
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: Philip Sutera; Kim Van Der Eecken; Amar U Kishan; Anis Hamid; Emily Grist; Gerhardt Attard; Tamara Lotan; Adrianna A Mendes; Channing J Paller; Michael A Carducci; Ashley Ross; Hao Wang; Ken Pienta; Felix Y Feng; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Piet Ost; Daniel Y Song; Stephen Greco; Curtiland Deville; Theodore DeWeese; Phuoc T Tran; Matthew P Deek Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 5.455
Authors: Wojciech Cytawa; Anna Katharina Seitz; Stefan Kircher; Kazuhito Fukushima; Johannes Tran-Gia; Andreas Schirbel; Tomasz Bandurski; Piotr Lass; Markus Krebs; Wojciech Połom; Marcin Matuszewski; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Andreas K Buck; Hubert Kübler; Constantin Lapa Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-09-16 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: Stefan A Koerber; Gerald Stach; Clemens Kratochwil; Matthias F Haefner; Henrik Rathke; Klaus Herfarth; Klaus Kopka; Tim Holland-Letz; Peter L Choyke; Uwe Haberkorn; Juergen Debus; Frederik L Giesel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-07-13 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Antoine Kass-Iliyya; Gordana Jovic; Claire Murphy; Cyril Fisher; Isabel Syndikus; Chakiath Jose; Christopher D Scrase; John D Graham; David Nicol; Matthew R Sydes; David Dearnaley Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-01-04 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Henk B Luiting; Pim J van Leeuwen; Martijn B Busstra; Tessa Brabander; Henk G van der Poel; Maarten L Donswijk; André N Vis; Louise Emmett; Phillip D Stricker; Monique J Roobol Journal: BJU Int Date: 2019-11-29 Impact factor: 5.588