Julia Corfield1,2,3, Marlon Perera4,5, Damien Bolton6,4, Nathan Lawrentschuk6,4,7. 1. The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. juliamcorfield@gmail.com. 2. Department of Surgery, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. juliamcorfield@gmail.com. 3. Department of Surgical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. juliamcorfield@gmail.com. 4. Department of Surgery, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. 5. School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 6. The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 7. Department of Surgical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To systematically review currently available data on 68Ga-prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) used for the primary staging of high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: We performed critical reviews of EMBASE, Web of Science (including MEDLINE) and Cochrane databases in October 2016 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis statement. We included studies that utilized 68Ga-PSMA PET for primary staging of prostate cancer. Quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for diagnostic test studies. RESULTS: Following our systematic search strategy, 12 studies were included for assessment. These studies comprised a total of 322 patients who underwent 68Ga-PSMA PET scanning for the purpose of primary staging. Only 5 of these studies included histopathologic correlation data. High variation in methodology and outcomes such as sensitivity (range 33-99%) and specificity (> 90%) was seen across all studies. The ability of 68Ga-PSMA PET to detect malignant lesions was evident across studies, with most studies demonstrating increased detection rates with respect to conventional imaging modalities. CONCLUSIONS: In the primary staging of prostate cancer 68Ga-PSMA PET appears to outperform traditional imaging modalities. Overall, there are few high-quality studies investigating 68Ga-PSMA PET in this sub-group highlighting the need for formal assessment of PSMA PET in the form of large-volume, prospective studies.
PURPOSE: To systematically review currently available data on 68Ga-prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) used for the primary staging of high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: We performed critical reviews of EMBASE, Web of Science (including MEDLINE) and Cochrane databases in October 2016 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis statement. We included studies that utilized 68Ga-PSMA PET for primary staging of prostate cancer. Quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for diagnostic test studies. RESULTS: Following our systematic search strategy, 12 studies were included for assessment. These studies comprised a total of 322 patients who underwent 68Ga-PSMA PET scanning for the purpose of primary staging. Only 5 of these studies included histopathologic correlation data. High variation in methodology and outcomes such as sensitivity (range 33-99%) and specificity (> 90%) was seen across all studies. The ability of 68Ga-PSMA PET to detect malignant lesions was evident across studies, with most studies demonstrating increased detection rates with respect to conventional imaging modalities. CONCLUSIONS: In the primary staging of prostate cancer 68Ga-PSMA PET appears to outperform traditional imaging modalities. Overall, there are few high-quality studies investigating 68Ga-PSMA PET in this sub-group highlighting the need for formal assessment of PSMA PET in the form of large-volume, prospective studies.
Authors: Christos Sachpekidis; Klaus Kopka; Matthias Eder; Boris A Hadaschik; Martin T Freitag; Leyun Pan; Uwe Haberkorn; Antonia Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Christian Uprimny; Alexander Stephan Kroiss; Clemens Decristoforo; Josef Fritz; Elisabeth von Guggenberg; Dorota Kendler; Lorenza Scarpa; Gianpaolo di Santo; Llanos Geraldo Roig; Johanna Maffey-Steffan; Wolfgang Horninger; Irene Johanna Virgolini Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: S Hijazi; B Meller; C Leitsmann; A Strauss; J Meller; C O Ritter; J Lotz; H-U Schildhaus; L Trojan; C O Sahlmann Journal: Prostate Date: 2015-09-10 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Lars Budäus; Sami-Ramzi Leyh-Bannurah; Georg Salomon; Uwe Michl; Hans Heinzer; Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen; Thomas Steuber; Clemens Rosenbaum Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Annika Herlemann; Vera Wenter; Alexander Kretschmer; Kolja M Thierfelder; Peter Bartenstein; Claudius Faber; Franz-Josef Gildehaus; Christian G Stief; Christian Gratzke; Wolfgang P Fendler Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: A Afshar-Oromieh; A Malcher; M Eder; M Eisenhut; H G Linhart; B A Hadaschik; T Holland-Letz; F L Giesel; C Kratochwil; S Haufe; U Haberkorn; C M Zechmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-11-24 Impact factor: 9.236
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: 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: 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