Christos Sachpekidis1, P Bäumer2, K Kopka3,4, B A Hadaschik5,6, M Hohenfellner5, A Kopp-Schneider7, U Haberkorn8,9, A Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss8. 1. Clinical Cooperation Unit Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69210, Heidelberg, Germany. christos_saxpe@yahoo.gr. 2. Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Division of Radiopharmaceutical Chemistry, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 4. German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, Germany. 5. Department of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 6. Department of Urology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. 7. Department of Biostatistics, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany. 8. Clinical Cooperation Unit Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69210, Heidelberg, Germany. 9. Division of Nuclear Medicine, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aims of this retrospective analysis were to compare 68Ga-PSMA PET findings and low-dose CT findings (120 kV, 30 mA), and to obtain semiquantitative and quantitative 68Ga-PSMA PET data in patients with prostate cancer (PC) bone metastases. METHODS: In total, 152 PET/CT scans from 140 patients were evaluated. Of these patients, 30 had previously untreated primary PC, and 110 had biochemical relapse after treatment of primary PC. All patients underwent dynamic PET/CT scanning of the pelvis and lower abdomen as well as whole-body PET/CT with 68Ga-PSMA-11. The PET/CT scans were analysed qualitatively (visually), semiquantitatively (SUV), and quantitatively based on a two-tissue compartment model and a noncompartmental approach leading to the extraction of the fractal dimension. Differences were considered significant for p values <0.05. RESULTS: In total, 168 68Ga-PSMA-positive and 113 CT-positive skeletal lesions were detected in 37 patients (8 with primary PC, 29 with biochemical recurrence). Of these 168 lesions, 103 were both 68Ga-PSMA PET-positive and CT-positive, 65 were only 68Ga-PSMA-positive, and 10 were only CT-positive. The Yang test showed that there were significantly more 68Ga-PSMA PET-positive lesions than CT-positive lesions. Association analysis showed that PSA plasma levels were significantly correlated with several 68Ga-PSMA-11-associated parameters in bone metastases, including the degree of tracer uptake (SUVaverage and SUVmax), its transport rate from plasma to the interstitial/intracellular compartment (K1), its rate of binding to the PSMA receptor and its internalization (k3), its influx rate (Ki), and its distribution heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT is a useful diagnostic tool in the detection of bone metastases in PC. 68Ga-PSMA PET visualizes more bone metastases than low-dose CT. PSA plasma levels are significantly correlated with several 68Ga-PSMA PET parameters.
PURPOSE: The aims of this retrospective analysis were to compare 68Ga-PSMA PET findings and low-dose CT findings (120 kV, 30 mA), and to obtain semiquantitative and quantitative 68Ga-PSMA PET data in patients with prostate cancer (PC) bone metastases. METHODS: In total, 152 PET/CT scans from 140 patients were evaluated. Of these patients, 30 had previously untreated primary PC, and 110 had biochemical relapse after treatment of primary PC. All patients underwent dynamic PET/CT scanning of the pelvis and lower abdomen as well as whole-body PET/CT with 68Ga-PSMA-11. The PET/CT scans were analysed qualitatively (visually), semiquantitatively (SUV), and quantitatively based on a two-tissue compartment model and a noncompartmental approach leading to the extraction of the fractal dimension. Differences were considered significant for p values <0.05. RESULTS: In total, 168 68Ga-PSMA-positive and 113 CT-positive skeletal lesions were detected in 37 patients (8 with primary PC, 29 with biochemical recurrence). Of these 168 lesions, 103 were both 68Ga-PSMA PET-positive and CT-positive, 65 were only 68Ga-PSMA-positive, and 10 were only CT-positive. The Yang test showed that there were significantly more 68Ga-PSMA PET-positive lesions than CT-positive lesions. Association analysis showed that PSA plasma levels were significantly correlated with several 68Ga-PSMA-11-associated parameters in bone metastases, including the degree of tracer uptake (SUVaverage and SUVmax), its transport rate from plasma to the interstitial/intracellular compartment (K1), its rate of binding to the PSMA receptor and its internalization (k3), its influx rate (Ki), and its distribution heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT is a useful diagnostic tool in the detection of bone metastases in PC. 68Ga-PSMA PET visualizes more bone metastases than low-dose CT. PSA plasma levels are significantly correlated with several 68Ga-PSMA PET parameters.
Entities:
Keywords:
68Ga-PSMA PET/CT; PSA; Prostate cancer bone metastases; SUV; Two-tissue compartment model
Authors: Clemens Kratochwil; Frank Bruchertseifer; Hendrik Rathke; Marcus Bronzel; Christos Apostolidis; Wilko Weichert; Uwe Haberkorn; Frederik L Giesel; Alfred Morgenstern Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Sebastian Mannweiler; Peter Amersdorfer; Slave Trajanoski; Jonathan A Terrett; David King; Gabor Mehes Journal: Pathol Oncol Res Date: 2008-09-18 Impact factor: 3.201
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: 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: Christos Sachpekidis; Leyun Pan; Boris A Hadaschik; Klaus Kopka; Uwe Haberkorn; Antonia Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-10-20
Authors: Christos Sachpekidis; A Afshar-Oromieh; K Kopka; D S Strauss; L Pan; U Haberkorn; A Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Chen Liu; Teli Liu; Ning Zhang; Yiqiang Liu; Nan Li; Peng Du; Yong Yang; Ming Liu; Kan Gong; Xing Yang; Hua Zhu; Kun Yan; Zhi Yang Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Panagiotis J Vlachostergios; Muhammad Junaid Niaz; Michael Sun; Seyed Ali Mosallaie; Charlene Thomas; Paul J Christos; Joseph R Osborne; Ana M Molina; David M Nanus; Neil H Bander; Scott T Tagawa Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-02-18 Impact factor: 6.244