Philipp Mandel1, Derya Tilki2, Felix K Chun3, Eugenia Pristupa4, Markus Graefen4, Susanne Klutmann5, Lars Budäus4, Thomas Steuber4. 1. Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany. 2. Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. Electronic address: d.tilki@uke.de. 3. Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany. 4. Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Abstract
Imaging modalities with high accuracy are essential for proper selection of patients for salvage lymph node dissection (sLND). Unlike nodal staging before radical prostatectomy, data on prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) before sLND are scarce. We analyzed 23 patients undergoing 68Ga-PSMA-PET before sLND and compared the imaging findings with histopathology at sLND. Altogether, 29/109 resected lymph node (LN) fields harbored histologically confirmed LN metastases (26.6%)., The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 89.5%, 74.1%, 70.8%, 90.9%, and 80.4% in side-based analysis, and 75.9%, 87.5%, 68.8%, 90.9%, and 84.4%, respectively, in LN field-based analysis. In contrast to existing studies, sensitivity in particular was lower. This might be because of referral for sLND on the basis of PSMA-PET from 13 different nuclear medicine centers. However, this could still provide more realistic data if sLND should become widely used. Second, our pathologists routinely used immunohistochemistry, resulting in a higher yield of smaller metastases, increasing the accuracy of histopathology. Despite its acceptable accuracy in a real-world scenario, sLND should not only focus on PSMA-PET-positive fields, as small PSMA-PET-negative metastases may be present. PATIENT SUMMARY: We analyzed the accuracy of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) before salvage lymph node dissection in a real-world situation. Although the accuracy is reasonable, resection should not exclusively focus on PSMA-PET-positive fields.
Imaging modalities with high accuracy are essential for proper selection of patients for salvage lymph node dissection (sLND). Unlike nodal staging before radical prostatectomy, data on prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) before sLND are scarce. We analyzed 23 patients undergoing 68Ga-PSMA-PET before sLND and compared the imaging findings with histopathology at sLND. Altogether, 29/109 resected lymph node (LN) fields harbored histologically confirmed LN metastases (26.6%)., The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 89.5%, 74.1%, 70.8%, 90.9%, and 80.4% in side-based analysis, and 75.9%, 87.5%, 68.8%, 90.9%, and 84.4%, respectively, in LN field-based analysis. In contrast to existing studies, sensitivity in particular was lower. This might be because of referral for sLND on the basis of PSMA-PET from 13 different nuclear medicine centers. However, this could still provide more realistic data if sLND should become widely used. Second, our pathologists routinely used immunohistochemistry, resulting in a higher yield of smaller metastases, increasing the accuracy of histopathology. Despite its acceptable accuracy in a real-world scenario, sLND should not only focus on PSMA-PET-positive fields, as small PSMA-PET-negative metastases may be present. PATIENT SUMMARY: We analyzed the accuracy of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) before salvage lymph node dissection in a real-world situation. Although the accuracy is reasonable, resection should not exclusively focus on PSMA-PET-positive fields.
Authors: Andrea Farolfi; Harun Ilhan; Andrei Gafita; Jeremie Calais; Francesco Barbato; Manuel Weber; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Fabian Spohn; Axel Wetter; Christoph Rischpler; Boris Hadaschik; Davide Pianori; Stefano Fanti; Uwe Haberkorn; Matthias Eiber; Ken Herrmann; Wolfgang Peter Fendler Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-12-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Henk B Luiting; Pim J van Leeuwen; Martijn B Busstra; Tessa Brabander; Henk G van der Poel; Maarten L Donswijk; André N Vis; Louise Emmett; Phillip D Stricker; Monique J Roobol Journal: BJU Int Date: 2019-11-29 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Marieke J Krimphove; Lena H Theissen; Alexander P Cole; Felix Preisser; Philipp C Mandel; Felix K H Chun Journal: World J Mens Health Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 5.400