Helle D Zacho1,2, Julie B Nielsen3,4, Ali Afshar-Oromieh5,6, Uwe Haberkorn5,7, Nandita deSouza8, Katja De Paepe8, Katja Dettmann9, Niels C Langkilde10, Christian Haarmark11, Rune V Fisker3,12, Dennis T Arp13, Jesper Carl14, Jørgen B Jensen9,15, Lars J Petersen3,4. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine and Clinical Cancer Research Center, Aalborg University Hospital, Hobrovej 18-22, Postboks 365, DK-9100, Aalborg, Denmark. h.zacho@rn.dk. 2. Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark. h.zacho@rn.dk. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine and Clinical Cancer Research Center, Aalborg University Hospital, Hobrovej 18-22, Postboks 365, DK-9100, Aalborg, Denmark. 4. Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 6. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland. 7. Clinical Cooperation Unit Nuclear Medicine, DKFZ, Heidelberg, Germany. 8. The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 9. Department of Urology, Regional Hospital West Jutland, Holstebro, Denmark. 10. Department of Urology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark. 11. Department of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Herlev, Denmark. 12. Department of Radiology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark. 13. Department of Medical Physics, Oncology Department, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark. 14. Department of Oncology, Naestved Sygehus, Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark. 15. Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To prospectively compare diagnostic accuracies for detection of bone metastases by 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT, 18F-NaF PET/CT and diffusion-weighted MRI (DW600-MRI) in prostate cancer (PCa) patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR). METHODS: Sixty-eight PCa patients with BCR participated in this prospective study. The patients underwent 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT, a 18F-NaF PET/CT and a DW600-MRI (performed in accordance with European Society of Urogenital Radiology guidelines, with b values of 0 and 600 s/mm2). Bone lesions were categorized using a three-point scale (benign, malignant or equivocal for metastases) and a dichotomous scale (benign or metastatic) for each imaging modality by at least two experienced observers. A best valuable comparator was defined for each patient based on study-specific imaging, at least 12 months of clinical follow-up and any imaging prior to the study and during follow-up. Diagnostic performance was assessed using a sensitivity analysis where equivocal lesions were handled as non-metastatic and then as metastatic. RESULTS: Ten of the 68 patients were diagnosed with bone metastases. On a patient level, sensitivity, specificity and the area under the curve (AUC) by receiver operating characteristic analysis were, respectively, 0.80, 0.98-1.00 and 0.89-0.90 for 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT (n = 68 patients); 0.90, 0.90-0.98 and 0.90-0.94 for 18NaF PET/CT (n = 67 patients); and 0.25-0.38, 0.87-0.92 and 0.59-0.62 for DW600-MRI (n = 60 patients). The diagnostic performance of DW600-MRI was significantly lower than that of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT and 18NaF PET/CT for diagnosing bone metastases (p < 0.01), and no significant difference in the AUC was seen between 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT and 18NaF PET/CT (p = 0.65). CONCLUSION: 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT and 18F-NaF PET/CT showed comparable and high diagnostic accuracies for detecting bone metastases in PCa patients with BCR. Both methods performed significantly better than DW600-MRI, which was inadequate for diagnosing bone metastases when conducted in accordance with European Society of Urogenital Radiology guidelines.
PURPOSE: To prospectively compare diagnostic accuracies for detection of bone metastases by 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT, 18F-NaF PET/CT and diffusion-weighted MRI (DW600-MRI) in prostate cancer (PCa) patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR). METHODS: Sixty-eight PCa patients with BCR participated in this prospective study. The patients underwent 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT, a 18F-NaF PET/CT and a DW600-MRI (performed in accordance with European Society of Urogenital Radiology guidelines, with b values of 0 and 600 s/mm2). Bone lesions were categorized using a three-point scale (benign, malignant or equivocal for metastases) and a dichotomous scale (benign or metastatic) for each imaging modality by at least two experienced observers. A best valuable comparator was defined for each patient based on study-specific imaging, at least 12 months of clinical follow-up and any imaging prior to the study and during follow-up. Diagnostic performance was assessed using a sensitivity analysis where equivocal lesions were handled as non-metastatic and then as metastatic. RESULTS: Ten of the 68 patients were diagnosed with bone metastases. On a patient level, sensitivity, specificity and the area under the curve (AUC) by receiver operating characteristic analysis were, respectively, 0.80, 0.98-1.00 and 0.89-0.90 for 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT (n = 68 patients); 0.90, 0.90-0.98 and 0.90-0.94 for 18NaF PET/CT (n = 67 patients); and 0.25-0.38, 0.87-0.92 and 0.59-0.62 for DW600-MRI (n = 60 patients). The diagnostic performance of DW600-MRI was significantly lower than that of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT and 18NaF PET/CT for diagnosing bone metastases (p < 0.01), and no significant difference in the AUC was seen between 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT and 18NaF PET/CT (p = 0.65). CONCLUSION: 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT and 18F-NaF PET/CT showed comparable and high diagnostic accuracies for detecting bone metastases in PCa patients with BCR. Both methods performed significantly better than DW600-MRI, which was inadequate for diagnosing bone metastases when conducted in accordance with European Society of Urogenital Radiology guidelines.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone metastases; Diffusion-weighted MRI; NaF-PET/CT; PSMA-PET/CT; Prostate cancer
Authors: Randi F Fonager; Helle D Zacho; Niels C Langkilde; Joan Fledelius; June A Ejlersen; Christian Haarmark; Helle W Hendel; Mine Benedicte Lange; Mads R Jochumsen; Jesper C Mortensen; Lars J Petersen Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-11-01
Authors: Jeremie Calais; Johannes Czernin; Minsong Cao; Amar U Kishan; John V Hegde; Narek Shaverdian; Kiri Sandler; Fang-I Chu; Chris R King; Michael L Steinberg; Isabel Rauscher; Nina-Sophie Schmidt-Hegemann; Thorsten Poeppel; Philipp Hetkamp; Francesco Ceci; Ken Herrmann; Wolfgang P Fendler; Matthias Eiber; Nicholas G Nickols Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 10.057
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
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: Anwar R Padhani; Frederic E Lecouvet; Nina Tunariu; Dow-Mu Koh; Frederik De Keyzer; David J Collins; Evis Sala; Heinz Peter Schlemmer; Giuseppe Petralia; H Alberto Vargas; Stefano Fanti; H Bertrand Tombal; Johann de Bono Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-06-14 Impact factor: 20.096
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: 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: Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Bernd Vollnberg; Ian Alberts; Alexandrine Bähler; Christos Sachpekidis; Lotte Dijkstra; Fabian Haupt; Silvan Boxler; Tobias Gross; Tim Holland-Letz; George Thalmann; Johannes Heverhagen; Axel Rominger; Kirsi Härmä; Martin H Maurer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-07-27 Impact factor: 9.236
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