Stephanie A Harmon1, Ethan Bergvall2, Esther Mena2, Joanna H Shih3, Stephen Adler4, Yolanda McKinney2, Sherif Mehralivand2, Deborah E Citrin5, Anna Couvillon6, Ravi A Madan6, James L Gulley6, Ronnie C Mease7, Paula M Jacobs8, Martin G Pomper7, Baris Turkbey2, Peter L Choyke2, M Liza Lindenberg2. 1. Clinical Research Directorate/Clinical Monitoring Research Program, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., National Cancer Institute, Campus at Frederick, Frederick, Maryland stephanie.harmon@nih.gov. 2. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 3. Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis: Biometric Research Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 4. Clinical Research Directorate/Clinical Monitoring Research Program, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., National Cancer Institute, Campus at Frederick, Frederick, Maryland. 5. Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 6. Genitourinary Malignancies Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 7. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; and. 8. Cancer Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of 18F-DCFBC PET/CT, a first-generation 18F-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted agent, and 18F-NaF PET/CT, a sensitive marker of osteoblastic activity, in a prospective cohort of patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Methods: Twenty-eight prostate cancer patients with metastatic disease on conventional imaging prospectively received up to 4 PET/CT scans. All patients completed baseline 18F-DCFBC PET/CT and 18F-NaF PET/CT scans, and 23 patients completed follow-up imaging, with a median follow-up interval of 5.7 mo (range, 4.2-12.6 mo). Lesion detection was compared across the 2 PET/CT agents at each time point. Detection and SUV characteristics of each PET/CT agent were compared with serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and treatment status at the time of baseline imaging using nonparametric statistical testing (Spearman correlation, Wilcoxon rank). Results: Twenty-six patients had metastatic disease detected on 18F-NaF or 18F-DCFBC at baseline, and 2 patients were negative on both scans. Three patients demonstrated soft tissue-only disease. Of 241 lesions detected at baseline, 56 were soft-tissue lesions identified by 18F-DCFBC only and 185 bone lesions detected on 18F-NaF or 18F-DCFBC. 18F-NaF detected significantly more bone lesions than 18F-DCFBC (P < 0.001). Correlation of PSA with patient-level SUV metrics was strong in 18F-DCFBC (ρ > 0.5, P < 0.01) and poor in 18F-NaF (ρ < 0.3, P > 0.1). When PSA levels were combined with treatment status, patients with below-median levels of PSA (<2 ng/mL) on androgen deprivation therapy (n = 11) demonstrated more lesions on 18F-NaF than 18F-DCFBC (P = 0.02). In PSA greater than 2 ng/mL, patients on androgen deprivation therapy (n = 8) showed equal to or more lesions on 18F-DCFBC than on 18F-NaF. Conclusion: The utility of PSMA-targeting imaging in metastatic prostate cancer appears to depend on patient disease course and treatment status. Compared with 18F-NaF PET/CT, 18F-DCFBC PET/CT detected significantly fewer bone lesions in the setting of early or metastatic castrate-sensitive disease on treatment. However, in advanced metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, 18F-DCFBC PET/CT shows good concordance with NaF PET/CT.
The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of 18F-DCFBC PET/CT, a first-generation 18F-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted agent, and 18F-NaF PET/CT, a sensitive marker of osteoblastic activity, in a prospective cohort of patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Methods: Twenty-eight prostate cancerpatients with metastatic disease on conventional imaging prospectively received up to 4 PET/CT scans. All patients completed baseline 18F-DCFBC PET/CT and 18F-NaF PET/CT scans, and 23 patients completed follow-up imaging, with a median follow-up interval of 5.7 mo (range, 4.2-12.6 mo). Lesion detection was compared across the 2 PET/CT agents at each time point. Detection and SUV characteristics of each PET/CT agent were compared with serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and treatment status at the time of baseline imaging using nonparametric statistical testing (Spearman correlation, Wilcoxon rank). Results: Twenty-six patients had metastatic disease detected on 18F-NaF or 18F-DCFBC at baseline, and 2 patients were negative on both scans. Three patients demonstrated soft tissue-only disease. Of 241 lesions detected at baseline, 56 were soft-tissue lesions identified by 18F-DCFBC only and 185 bone lesions detected on 18F-NaF or 18F-DCFBC. 18F-NaF detected significantly more bone lesions than 18F-DCFBC (P < 0.001). Correlation of PSA with patient-level SUV metrics was strong in 18F-DCFBC (ρ > 0.5, P < 0.01) and poor in 18F-NaF (ρ < 0.3, P > 0.1). When PSA levels were combined with treatment status, patients with below-median levels of PSA (<2 ng/mL) on androgen deprivation therapy (n = 11) demonstrated more lesions on 18F-NaF than 18F-DCFBC (P = 0.02). In PSA greater than 2 ng/mL, patients on androgen deprivation therapy (n = 8) showed equal to or more lesions on 18F-DCFBC than on 18F-NaF. Conclusion: The utility of PSMA-targeting imaging in metastatic prostate cancer appears to depend on patient disease course and treatment status. Compared with 18F-NaF PET/CT, 18F-DCFBC PET/CT detected significantly fewer bone lesions in the setting of early or metastatic castrate-sensitive disease on treatment. However, in advanced metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, 18F-DCFBC PET/CT shows good concordance with NaF PET/CT.
Authors: Christian Uprimny; Alexander Kroiss; Bernhard Nilica; Sabine Buxbaum; Clemens Decristoforo; Wolfgang Horninger; Irene J Virgolini Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-10-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Michael J Evans; Peter M Smith-Jones; John Wongvipat; Vincent Navarro; Sae Kim; Neil H Bander; Steven M Larson; Charles L Sawyers Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-05-23 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Matthias Eiber; Wolfgang P Fendler; Steven P Rowe; Jeremie Calais; Michael S Hofman; Tobias Maurer; Sarah M Schwarzenboeck; Clemens Kratowchil; Ken Herrmann; Frederik L Giesel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Steve Y Cho; Kenneth L Gage; Ronnie C Mease; Srinivasan Senthamizhchelvan; Daniel P Holt; Akimosa Jeffrey-Kwanisai; Christopher J Endres; Robert F Dannals; George Sgouros; Martin Lodge; Mario A Eisenberger; Ronald Rodriguez; Michael A Carducci; Camilo Rojas; Barbara S Slusher; Alan P Kozikowski; Martin G Pomper Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Martine P Roudier; Lawrence D True; Celestia S Higano; Hubert Vesselle; William Ellis; Paul Lange; Robert L Vessella Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 3.466
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: Alison R Roth; Stephanie A Harmon; Timothy G Perk; Jens Eickhoff; Peter L Choyke; Karen A Kurdziel; William L Dahut; Andrea B Apolo; Michael J Morris; Scott B Perlman; Glenn Liu; Robert Jeraj Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2019-05-27 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Marijo Bilusic; David J Einstein; Fatima H Karzai; William L Dahut; James L Gulley; Jeanny B Aragon-Ching; Ravi A Madan Journal: Urol Clin North Am Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 2.241
Authors: Jyoti Roy; Margaret E White; Falguni Basuli; Ana Christina L Opina; Karen Wong; Morgan Riba; Anita T Ton; Xiang Zhang; Keith H Jansson; Elijah Edmondson; Donna Butcher; Frank I Lin; Peter L Choyke; Kathleen Kelly; Elaine M Jagoda Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2021-04-23 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Steven P Rowe; Xin Li; Bruce J Trock; Rudolf A Werner; Sarah Frey; Michael DiGianvittorio; J Keith Bleiler; Diane K Reyes; Rehab Abdallah; Kenneth J Pienta; Michael A Gorin; Martin G Pomper Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-08-26 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Kelsey L Pomykala; Johannes Czernin; Tristan R Grogan; Wesley R Armstrong; John Williams; Jeremie Calais Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-09-20 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Marcin Czarniecki; Esther Mena; Liza Lindenberg; Marek Cacko; Stephanie Harmon; Jan Philipp Radtke; Frederick Giesel; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2018-10
Authors: Stephanie A Harmon; Esther Mena; Joanna H Shih; Stephen Adler; Yolanda McKinney; Ethan Bergvall; Sherif Mehralivand; Adam G Sowalsky; Anna Couvillon; Ravi A Madan; James L Gulley; Janet Eary; Ronnie C Mease; Martin G Pomper; William L Dahut; Baris Turkbey; Liza Lindenberg; Peter L Choyke Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2018-12-28