Sangwon Han1, Sungmin Woo2, Yeon Joo Kim3, Chong Hyun Suh4. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 86 Asanbyeongwon-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: j_crew7@hotmail.com. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 86 Asanbyeongwon-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 86 Asanbyeongwon-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
CONTEXT: 68Gallium prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (68Ga-PSMA PET) is an emerging imaging modality for assessment of prostate cancer. Recent studies show promising results regarding its ability to detect recurrent or metastatic prostate cancer superior to that of conventional imaging modalities. However, the impact of 68Ga-PSMA PET on management of patients with prostate cancer has not been well established. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of 68Ga-PSMA PET on management of patients with prostate cancer. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Pubmed and EMBASE databases were searched up to January 20, 2018. We included studies that reported proportion of management change after 68Ga-PSMA PET in patients with prostate cancer. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the GRADE system. The proportion of management changes were pooled using random-effects model. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression analyses were performed to explore heterogeneity. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Fifteen studies (1163 patients) were included. The pooled proportion of management changes was 54% (95% confidence interval 47-60%). At meta-regression analyses, PET positivity (%) was a significant factor of heterogeneity (p=0.0486). For patients with biochemical failure, the proportion of radiotherapy (from 56% to 61%), surgery (from 1% to 7%), focal therapy (from 1% to 2%), and multimodal treatment (from 2% to 6%) increased, whereas that of systemic treatment (from 26% to 12%) and no treatment (from 14% to 11%) decreased with 68Ga-PSMA PET. CONCLUSIONS: 68Ga-PSMA PET had a large impact on the management of patients with prostate cancer. Greater PET positivity was associated with higher proportion of management changes. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed all previous studies assessing the impact of 68Gallium prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (68Ga-PSMA PET) in patients with prostate cancer. We found that 68Ga-PSMA PET altered the management in approximately half of the patients.
CONTEXT: 68Gallium prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (68Ga-PSMA PET) is an emerging imaging modality for assessment of prostate cancer. Recent studies show promising results regarding its ability to detect recurrent or metastatic prostate cancer superior to that of conventional imaging modalities. However, the impact of 68Ga-PSMA PET on management of patients with prostate cancer has not been well established. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of 68Ga-PSMA PET on management of patients with prostate cancer. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Pubmed and EMBASE databases were searched up to January 20, 2018. We included studies that reported proportion of management change after 68Ga-PSMA PET in patients with prostate cancer. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the GRADE system. The proportion of management changes were pooled using random-effects model. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression analyses were performed to explore heterogeneity. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Fifteen studies (1163 patients) were included. The pooled proportion of management changes was 54% (95% confidence interval 47-60%). At meta-regression analyses, PET positivity (%) was a significant factor of heterogeneity (p=0.0486). For patients with biochemical failure, the proportion of radiotherapy (from 56% to 61%), surgery (from 1% to 7%), focal therapy (from 1% to 2%), and multimodal treatment (from 2% to 6%) increased, whereas that of systemic treatment (from 26% to 12%) and no treatment (from 14% to 11%) decreased with 68Ga-PSMA PET. CONCLUSIONS: 68Ga-PSMA PET had a large impact on the management of patients with prostate cancer. Greater PET positivity was associated with higher proportion of management changes. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed all previous studies assessing the impact of 68Gallium prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (68Ga-PSMA PET) in patients with prostate cancer. We found that 68Ga-PSMA PET altered the management in approximately half of the patients.
Authors: Mark A Green; Gary D Hutchins; Clinton D Bahler; Mark Tann; Carla J Mathias; Wendy Territo; Justin Sims; Heather Polson; David Alexoff; William C Eckelman; Hank F Kung; James W Fletcher Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Karine Sahakyan; Xin Li; Martin A Lodge; Rudolf A Werner; Ralph A Bundschuh; Lena Bundschuh; Harshad R Kulkarni; Christiane Schuchardt; Richard P Baum; Kenneth J Pienta; Martin G Pomper; Ashley E Ross; Michael A Gorin; Steven P Rowe Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Roy van der Meel; Einar Sulheim; Yang Shi; Fabian Kiessling; Willem J M Mulder; Twan Lammers Journal: Nat Nanotechnol Date: 2019-11-06 Impact factor: 39.213
Authors: Lars J Petersen; Julie B Nielsen; Niels C Langkilde; Astrid Petersen; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Nandita M De Souza; Katja De Paepe; Rune V Fisker; Dennis T Arp; Jesper Carl; Uwe Haberkorn; Helle D Zacho Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-06-12 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Frédéric Bois; Camille Noirot; Sébastien Dietemann; Ismini C Mainta; Thomas Zilli; Valentina Garibotto; Martin A Walter Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-12-15
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