I Berger1,2, C Annabattula3,4, J Lewis3, D V Shetty4, J Kam3, F Maclean5, M Arianayagam3, B Canagasingham3, R Ferguson3, M Khadra3,6, R Ko3, M Winter3, H Loh4, C Varol3. 1. Nepean Urology Research Group, Nepean Hospital, Penrith, NSW, Australia. israel.berger@sydney.edu.au. 2. University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. israel.berger@sydney.edu.au. 3. Nepean Urology Research Group, Nepean Hospital, Penrith, NSW, Australia. 4. Department of Medical Imaging, Nepean Hospital, Penrith, NSW, Australia. 5. Douglass Hanly Moir Pathology, North Ryde, NSW, Australia. 6. University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) can be used to locate lesions based on PSMA avidity, however guidelines on its use are limited by its infancy. We aimed to compare multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and PSMA PET/CT to prostatectomy histopathology. METHODS: We conducted a chart review from February 2015 to January 2017 of 50 male patients staged for prostate cancer using PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI who then underwent radical prostatectomy. Pre-operative PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI were paired with corresponding histopathology. Correlations, sensitivity, and specificity were used for comparisons. RESULTS: A total of 81 lesions were confirmed by histopathology. Fifty index lesions were detected by histopathology, all of which were detected by PSMA PET/CT (100% detection), and 47 by mpMRI (94% detection). Thirty-one histologically confirmed secondary lesions were detected, 29 of which were detected by PSMA PET/CT (93.5% detection), and 16 by mpMRI (51.6% detection). PSMA had better sensitivity for index lesion localization than mpMRI (81.1 vs. 64.8%). Specificity was similar for PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI (84.6 vs. 82.7%). SUVmax of index lesions ranged from 2.9 to 39.6 (M = 9.27 ± 6.41). Index lesion SUVmax was positively correlated with PSA (rho = 0.48, p < 0.001) and ISUP grade (rho = 0.51, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PSMA-PET/CT provided superior detection of prostate cancer lesions with better sensitivity than mpMRI. PSMA-PET/CT can be used to enhance locoregional mpMRI to provide improved detection and characterization of lesions.
BACKGROUND:Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) can be used to locate lesions based on PSMA avidity, however guidelines on its use are limited by its infancy. We aimed to compare multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and PSMA PET/CT to prostatectomy histopathology. METHODS: We conducted a chart review from February 2015 to January 2017 of 50 male patients staged for prostate cancer using PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI who then underwent radical prostatectomy. Pre-operative PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI were paired with corresponding histopathology. Correlations, sensitivity, and specificity were used for comparisons. RESULTS: A total of 81 lesions were confirmed by histopathology. Fifty index lesions were detected by histopathology, all of which were detected by PSMA PET/CT (100% detection), and 47 by mpMRI (94% detection). Thirty-one histologically confirmed secondary lesions were detected, 29 of which were detected by PSMA PET/CT (93.5% detection), and 16 by mpMRI (51.6% detection). PSMA had better sensitivity for index lesion localization than mpMRI (81.1 vs. 64.8%). Specificity was similar for PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI (84.6 vs. 82.7%). SUVmax of index lesions ranged from 2.9 to 39.6 (M = 9.27 ± 6.41). Index lesion SUVmax was positively correlated with PSA (rho = 0.48, p < 0.001) and ISUP grade (rho = 0.51, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:PSMA-PET/CT provided superior detection of prostate cancer lesions with better sensitivity than mpMRI. PSMA-PET/CT can be used to enhance locoregional mpMRI to provide improved detection and characterization of lesions.
Authors: Jean V Joseph; Ralph Brasacchio; Chunkit Fung; Jay Reeder; Kevin Bylund; Deepak Sahasrabudhe; Shu Yuan Yeh; Ahmed Ghazi; Patrick Fultz; Deborah Rubens; Guan Wu; Eric Singer; Edward Schwarz; Supriya Mohile; James Mohler; Dan Theodorescu; Yi Fen Lee; Paul Okunieff; David McConkey; Hani Rashid; Chawnshang Chang; Yves Fradet; Khurshid Guru; Janet Kukreja; Gerald Sufrin; Yair Lotan; Howard Bailey; Katia Noyes; Seymour Schwartz; Kathy Rideout; Gennady Bratslavsky; Steven C Campbell; Ithaar Derweesh; Per-Anders Abrahamsson; Mark Soloway; Leonard Gomella; Dragan Golijanin; Robert Svatek; Thomas Frye; Seth Lerner; Ganesh Palapattu; George Wilding; Michael Droller; Donald Trump Journal: Bladder Cancer Date: 2018-10-03
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: Daniela A Ferraro; Helena I Garcia Schüler; Urs J Muehlematter; Daniel Eberli; Julian Müller; Alexander Müller; Roger Gablinger; Helmut Kranzbühler; Aurelius Omlin; Philipp A Kaufmann; Thomas Hermanns; Irene A Burger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-12-04 Impact factor: 9.236
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: 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