AIM: The purpose of this study was to investigate the diagnostic performance of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in the evaluation of bone metastases in metastatic prostate cancer (PC) patients scheduled for radionuclide therapy in comparison to [18F]sodium fluoride (18F-NaF) PET/CT. METHODS: Sixteen metastatic PC patients with known skeletal metastases, who underwent both 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT and 18F-NaF PET/CT for assessment of metastatic burden prior to radionuclide therapy, were analysed retrospectively. The performance of both tracers was calculated on a lesion-based comparison. Intensity of tracer accumulation of pathologic bone lesions on 18F-NaF PET and 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET was measured with maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) and compared to background activity of normal bone. In addition, SUVmax values of PET-positive bone lesions were analysed with respect to morphologic characteristics on CT. Bone metastases were either confirmed by CT or follow-up PET scan. RESULTS: In contrast to 468 PET-positive lesions suggestive of bone metastases on 18F-NaF PET, only 351 of the lesions were also judged positive on 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET (75.0%). Intensity of tracer accumulation of pathologic skeletal lesions was significantly higher on 18F-NaF PET compared to 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET, showing a median SUVmax of 27.0 and 6.0, respectively (p < 0.001). Background activity of normal bone was lower on 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET, with a median SUVmax of 1.0 in comparison to 2.7 on 18F-NaF PET; however, tumour to background ratio was significantly higher on 18F-NaF PET (9.8 versus 5.9 on 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET; p = 0.042). Based on morphologic lesion characterisation on CT, 18F-NaF PET revealed median SUVmax values of 23.6 for osteosclerotic, 35.0 for osteolytic, and 19.0 for lesions not visible on CT, whereas on 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET median SUVmax values of 5.0 in osteosclerotic, 29.5 in osteolytic, and 7.5 in lesions not seen on CT were measured. Intensity of tracer accumulation between18F-NaF PET and 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET was significantly higher in osteosclerotic (p < 0.001) and lesions not visible on CT (p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: In comparison to 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT, 18F-NaF PET/CT detects a higher number of pathologic bone lesions in advanced stage PC patients scheduled for radionuclide therapy. Our data suggest that 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET should be combined with 18F-NaF PET in PC patients with skeletal metastases for restaging prior to initiation or modification of therapy.
AIM: The purpose of this study was to investigate the diagnostic performance of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in the evaluation of bone metastases in metastatic prostate cancer (PC) patients scheduled for radionuclide therapy in comparison to [18F]sodium fluoride (18F-NaF) PET/CT. METHODS: Sixteen metastatic PC patients with known skeletal metastases, who underwent both 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT and 18F-NaF PET/CT for assessment of metastatic burden prior to radionuclide therapy, were analysed retrospectively. The performance of both tracers was calculated on a lesion-based comparison. Intensity of tracer accumulation of pathologic bone lesions on 18F-NaF PET and 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET was measured with maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) and compared to background activity of normal bone. In addition, SUVmax values of PET-positive bone lesions were analysed with respect to morphologic characteristics on CT. Bone metastases were either confirmed by CT or follow-up PET scan. RESULTS: In contrast to 468 PET-positive lesions suggestive of bone metastases on 18F-NaF PET, only 351 of the lesions were also judged positive on 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET (75.0%). Intensity of tracer accumulation of pathologic skeletal lesions was significantly higher on 18F-NaF PET compared to 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET, showing a median SUVmax of 27.0 and 6.0, respectively (p < 0.001). Background activity of normal bone was lower on 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET, with a median SUVmax of 1.0 in comparison to 2.7 on 18F-NaF PET; however, tumour to background ratio was significantly higher on 18F-NaF PET (9.8 versus 5.9 on 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET; p = 0.042). Based on morphologic lesion characterisation on CT, 18F-NaF PET revealed median SUVmax values of 23.6 for osteosclerotic, 35.0 for osteolytic, and 19.0 for lesions not visible on CT, whereas on 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET median SUVmax values of 5.0 in osteosclerotic, 29.5 in osteolytic, and 7.5 in lesions not seen on CT were measured. Intensity of tracer accumulation between18F-NaF PET and 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET was significantly higher in osteosclerotic (p < 0.001) and lesions not visible on CT (p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: In comparison to 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT, 18F-NaF PET/CT detects a higher number of pathologic bone lesions in advanced stage PC patients scheduled for radionuclide therapy. Our data suggest that 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET should be combined with 18F-NaF PET in PC patients with skeletal metastases for restaging prior to initiation or modification of therapy.
Entities:
Keywords:
18F-NaF PET/CT; 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT; Bone metastases; Prostate cancer; Restaging
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: Campbell Tait; David Moore; Clare Hodgson; Michael Brown; Thomas Morris; Jim Growcott; Michael Malone; Andrew Hughes; Andrew Renehan; Noel W Clarke; Caroline Dive Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-07-27 Impact factor: 5.588
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: Daria Handkiewicz-Junak; Thorsten D Poeppel; Lisa Bodei; Cumali Aktolun; Samer Ezziddin; Francesco Giammarile; Roberto C Delgado-Bolton; Michael Gabriel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-02-16 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: 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: Nicholas Hardcastle; Michael S Hofman; Ching-Yu Lee; Jason Callahan; Lisa Selbie; Farshad Foroudi; Mark Shaw; Sarat Chander; Andrew Lim; Brent Chesson; Declan G Murphy; Tomas Kron; Shankar Siva Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-09-05 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Johanna Maffey-Steffan; Lorenza Scarpa; Anna Svirydenka; Bernhard Nilica; Christian Mair; Sabine Buxbaum; Jasmin Bektic; Elisabeth von Guggenberg; Christian Uprimny; Wolfgang Horninger; Irene Virgolini Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 9.236
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: 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