Berardino De Bari1, Rosario Mazzola2, Dario Aiello3, Sergio Fersino3, Fabiana Gregucci3, Pierpaolo Alongi4, Maurizio Nicodemo5, Stefano Cavalleri6, Matteo Salgarello7, Filippo Alongi3,8. 1. Radiation Oncology Department, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire Jean Minjoz-INSERM U1098 EFS/BFC, Besançon, France. 2. Radiation Oncology, Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Negrar, Verona, Italy. rosariomazzola@hotmail.it. 3. Radiation Oncology, Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Negrar, Verona, Italy. 4. Department of Radiological Sciences, Nuclear Medicine Unit, Fondazione Istituto G. Giglio, Cefalù, Italy. 5. Medical Oncology, Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Negrar, Verona, Italy. 6. Division of Urology, Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Negrar, Verona, Italy. 7. Nuclear Medicine, Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Negrar, Verona, Italy. 8. University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the impact of gallium68 PSMA-11 (HBED-CC)-PET/CT on decision-making strategy of patients with relapsing prostate cancer (PC) presenting a second biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy (RP) and salvage RT or salvage androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 40 patients were retrospectively analyzed. All of them had received prostatectomy. Thirteen out of 40 were addressed to gallium68 PSMA-11 (HBED-CC)-PET/CT for a biochemical relapse after RP, 14/40 after a salvage RT and 13/40 after salvage or adjuvant ADT. The PSA level ranged between 0.1 and 1.62 ng/ml (median value: 0.51 ng/ml). We studied the impact on the decision-making process of a multidisciplinary tumor board of additional data obtained from gallium68 PSMA-11 (HBED-CC)-PET/CT. RESULTS: Thirty-one out of 40 evaluated patients showed positive findings at gallium68 PSMA-11 (HBED-CC)-PET/CT (77.5%). Of them, five were positive in the prostatic bed, nine in the pelvic nodes, twelve in nodes outside the pelvis and eight at bone level. Nine patients presented two different sites of relapse (22.5%). Gallium68 PSMA-11 (HBED-CC)-PET/CT data changed the therapeutic approach in 28 patients (70%). CONCLUSIONS: Gallium68 PSMA-11 (HBED-CC)-PET/CT can be a useful tool in the restaging of post-RP, RT or ADT patients presenting biochemical relapse of PC and it could change the decision-making process in up of 70% of these patients. Prospective, larger series are needed to establish the correct role of this very promising tool in the staging and therapeutic approach of PC patients.
AIM: To evaluate the impact of gallium68PSMA-11 (HBED-CC)-PET/CT on decision-making strategy of patients with relapsing prostate cancer (PC) presenting a second biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy (RP) and salvage RT or salvage androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 40 patients were retrospectively analyzed. All of them had received prostatectomy. Thirteen out of 40 were addressed to gallium68PSMA-11 (HBED-CC)-PET/CT for a biochemical relapse after RP, 14/40 after a salvage RT and 13/40 after salvage or adjuvant ADT. The PSA level ranged between 0.1 and 1.62 ng/ml (median value: 0.51 ng/ml). We studied the impact on the decision-making process of a multidisciplinary tumor board of additional data obtained from gallium68PSMA-11 (HBED-CC)-PET/CT. RESULTS: Thirty-one out of 40 evaluated patients showed positive findings at gallium68PSMA-11 (HBED-CC)-PET/CT (77.5%). Of them, five were positive in the prostatic bed, nine in the pelvic nodes, twelve in nodes outside the pelvis and eight at bone level. Nine patients presented two different sites of relapse (22.5%). Gallium68PSMA-11 (HBED-CC)-PET/CT data changed the therapeutic approach in 28 patients (70%). CONCLUSIONS:Gallium68PSMA-11 (HBED-CC)-PET/CT can be a useful tool in the restaging of post-RP, RT or ADTpatients presenting biochemical relapse of PC and it could change the decision-making process in up of 70% of these patients. Prospective, larger series are needed to establish the correct role of this very promising tool in the staging and therapeutic approach of PC patients.
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: 2017-09 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: David Pfister; Daniel Porres; Axel Heidenreich; Isabel Heidegger; Ruth Knuechel; Florian Steib; Florian F Behrendt; Frederik A Verburg Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-03-19 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Elena Incerti; Andrei Fodor; Paola Mapelli; Claudio Fiorino; Pierpaolo Alongi; Margarita Kirienko; Giampiero Giovacchini; Elena Busnardo; Luigi Gianolli; Nadia Di Muzio; Maria Picchio Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Thomas Wiegel; Dirk Bottke; Ursula Steiner; Alessandra Siegmann; Reinhard Golz; Stephan Störkel; Norman Willich; Axel Semjonow; Rainer Souchon; Michael Stöckle; Christian Rübe; Lothar Weissbach; Peter Althaus; Udo Rebmann; Tilman Kälble; Horst Jürgen Feldmann; Manfred Wirth; Axel Hinke; Wolfgang Hinkelbein; Kurt Miller Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-11 Impact factor: 44.544
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