Mark Thalgott1, Charlotte Düwel2, Isabel Rauscher3, Matthias M Heck2, Bernhard Haller4, Andrei Gafita3, Jürgen E Gschwend2, Markus Schwaiger3, Tobias Maurer2, Matthias Eiber3,5. 1. Department of Urology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany m.thalgott@web.de. 2. Department of Urology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 4. Institute of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany; and. 5. Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles.
Abstract
Our aim was to assess the diagnostic potential of 1-stop-shop prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand (68Ga-PSMA-11) PET/MRI compared with preoperative staging nomograms in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Methods: A total of 102 patients underwent 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI before intended radical prostatectomy with lymph node dissection. Preoperative variables determined the probabilities for lymph node metastases (LNM), extracapsular extension (ECE), and seminal vesical involvement (SVI) using the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) nomogram and Partin tables. Receiver-operating-characteristic analyses were performed to determine best discriminatory cutoffs. On a cohort basis, positivity rates of imaging and nomograms were compared with pathologic prevalence. On a patient basis, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curves were calculated. Finally, the full concordance of each method to postoperative T and N stage was determined. Results: Seventy-three patients were finally analyzed. On a cohort basis, the MSKCC nomogram (39.7%) positivity rate was most concordant with pathologic prevalence for LNM (34.3%) compared with Partin tables (14.1%) and imaging (20.6%). Prevalence of ECE (72.6%) was best predicted by MSKCC nomograms and imaging (83.6% each), compared with Partin tables (38.4%). For prevalence of SVI (45.2%), imaging (47.9%) performed superior to MSKCC (37.6%) and Partin tables (19.3%). On a patient basis, AUCs for LNM, ECE, and SVI did not differ significantly between tests (P > 0.05). Imaging revealed a high specificity (100%) for LNM and a sensitivity (60%) comparable to the MSKCC nomogram (68%) and Partin tables (60%). For ECE, imaging revealed the highest sensitivity (94.3%) compared with the MSKCC nomogram (66%) and Partin tables (71.1%). For SVI, sensitivity and specificity of imaging and the MSKCC nomogram were comparable (81.5% and 80% vs. 87.9% and 75%). The rate of concordance to the final pTN stage was 60.3% for imaging, 52.1% for the MSKCC nomogram, and 39.7% for Partin tables. Conclusion: In our analysis, preoperative 1-stop-shop 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI performs at least equally for T and N stage prediction compared with nomograms in high-risk prostate cancer patients. Despite an improved prediction of the full final stage and the yield of additional anatomic information, the use of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI warrants further prospective evaluation.
Our aim was to assess the diagnostic potential of 1-stop-shop prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand (68Ga-PSMA-11) PET/MRI compared with preoperative staging nomograms in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Methods: A total of 102 patients underwent 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI before intended radical prostatectomy with lymph node dissection. Preoperative variables determined the probabilities for lymph node metastases (LNM), extracapsular extension (ECE), and seminal vesical involvement (SVI) using the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) nomogram and Partin tables. Receiver-operating-characteristic analyses were performed to determine best discriminatory cutoffs. On a cohort basis, positivity rates of imaging and nomograms were compared with pathologic prevalence. On a patient basis, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curves were calculated. Finally, the full concordance of each method to postoperative T and N stage was determined. Results: Seventy-three patients were finally analyzed. On a cohort basis, the MSKCC nomogram (39.7%) positivity rate was most concordant with pathologic prevalence for LNM (34.3%) compared with Partin tables (14.1%) and imaging (20.6%). Prevalence of ECE (72.6%) was best predicted by MSKCC nomograms and imaging (83.6% each), compared with Partin tables (38.4%). For prevalence of SVI (45.2%), imaging (47.9%) performed superior to MSKCC (37.6%) and Partin tables (19.3%). On a patient basis, AUCs for LNM, ECE, and SVI did not differ significantly between tests (P > 0.05). Imaging revealed a high specificity (100%) for LNM and a sensitivity (60%) comparable to the MSKCC nomogram (68%) and Partin tables (60%). For ECE, imaging revealed the highest sensitivity (94.3%) compared with the MSKCC nomogram (66%) and Partin tables (71.1%). For SVI, sensitivity and specificity of imaging and the MSKCC nomogram were comparable (81.5% and 80% vs. 87.9% and 75%). The rate of concordance to the final pTN stage was 60.3% for imaging, 52.1% for the MSKCC nomogram, and 39.7% for Partin tables. Conclusion: In our analysis, preoperative 1-stop-shop 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI performs at least equally for T and N stage prediction compared with nomograms in high-risk prostate cancerpatients. Despite an improved prediction of the full final stage and the yield of additional anatomic information, the use of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI warrants further prospective evaluation.
Authors: Divya Yadav; Hyunsoo Hwang; Wei Qiao; Rituraj Upadhyay; Brian F Chapin; Chad Tang; Ana Aparicio; Maria A Lopez-Olivo; Stella K Kang; Homer A Macapinlac; Tharakeswara K Bathala; Devaki Shilpa Surasi Journal: Radiol Imaging Cancer Date: 2022-03
Authors: Ida Sonni; Ely R Felker; Andrew T Lenis; Anthony E Sisk; Shadfar Bahri; Martin Allen-Auerbach; Wesley R Armstrong; Voraparee Suvannarerg; Teeravut Tubtawee; Tristan Grogan; David Elashoff; Matthias Eiber; Steven S Raman; Johannes Czernin; Robert E Reiter; Jeremie Calais Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-10-14 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Daniela A Ferraro; Urs J Muehlematter; Helena I Garcia Schüler; Niels J Rupp; Martin Huellner; Michael Messerli; Jan Hendrik Rüschoff; Edwin E G W Ter Voert; Thomas Hermanns; Irene A Burger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-09-14 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Liran Domachevsky; Natalia Goldberg; Miguel Gorenberg; Hanna Bernstine; David Groshar; Onofrio A Catalano Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2020-01
Authors: Sungmin Woo; Soleen Ghafoor; Anton S Becker; Sangwon Han; Andreas G Wibmer; Hedvig Hricak; Irene A Burger; Heiko Schöder; Hebert Alberto Vargas Journal: Eur J Hybrid Imaging Date: 2020-09-09