Eva Dyrberg1,2, Helle W Hendel3, Tri Hien Viet Huynh3, Tobias Wirenfeldt Klausen4, Vibeke B Løgager5, Claus Madsen3, Erik M Pedersen6, Maria Pedersen3, Henrik S Thomsen5. 1. Department of Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev and Gentofte, Herlev Ringvej 75, DK-2730, Herlev, Denmark. edyrberg@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, PET and Cyclotron, Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev and Gentofte, DK-2730, Herlev, Denmark. edyrberg@hotmail.com. 3. Department of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, PET and Cyclotron, Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev and Gentofte, DK-2730, Herlev, Denmark. 4. Department of Hematology, Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev and Gentofte, DK-2730, Herlev, Denmark. 5. Department of Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev and Gentofte, Herlev Ringvej 75, DK-2730, Herlev, Denmark. 6. Department of Radiology, Aarhus University Hospital, DK-8000, Aarhus C, Denmark.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of 68gallium prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-based positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in comparison with 18F-fluoride-based PET/CT (NaF-PET/CT) and whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) for the detection of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer. METHODS: Sixty patients with prostate cancer were included in the period May 2016 to June 2017. The participants underwent three scans (index tests) within 30 days: a NaF-PET/CT, a WB-MRI and a PSMA-PET/CT. Experienced specialists assessed the scans. In the absence of a histological reference standard, the final diagnosis was determined as a panel diagnosis. Measures of the diagnostic performances of the index tests were calculated from patient-based dichotomous outcomes (0 or ≥ 1 bone metastasis) and pairwise compared (McNemar test). For each index test, the agreement with the final diagnosis with regard to the number of bone metastases detected (0, 1-5, > 5) and the inter-reader agreement was calculated (kappa coefficients). RESULTS: Fifty-five patients constituted the final study population; 20 patients (36%) were classified as having bone metastatic disease as their final diagnosis. The patient-based diagnostic performances were (sensitivity, specificity, overall accuracy) PSMA-PET/CT (100%, 100%, 100%), NaF-PET/CT (95%, 97%, 96%) and WB-MRI (80%, 83%, 82%). The overall accuracy of PSMA-PET/CT was significantly more favourable compared to WB-MRI (p = 0.004), but not to NaF-PET/CT (p = 0.48). PSMA-PET/CT classified the number of bone metastases reliably compared to the final diagnosis (kappa coefficient 0.97) and with an "almost perfect" inter-reader agreement (kappa coefficient 0.93). CONCLUSIONS: The overall accuracy of PSMA-PET/CT was significantly more advantageous compared to WB-MRI, but not to NaF-PET/CT. KEY POINTS: • PSMA-PET/CT assessed the presence of bone metastases correctly in all 55 patients • PSMA-PET/CT was more advantageous compared to WB-MRI • No difference was found between PSMA-PET/CT and NaF-PET/CT.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of 68galliumprostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-based positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in comparison with 18F-fluoride-based PET/CT (NaF-PET/CT) and whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) for the detection of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer. METHODS: Sixty patients with prostate cancer were included in the period May 2016 to June 2017. The participants underwent three scans (index tests) within 30 days: a NaF-PET/CT, a WB-MRI and a PSMA-PET/CT. Experienced specialists assessed the scans. In the absence of a histological reference standard, the final diagnosis was determined as a panel diagnosis. Measures of the diagnostic performances of the index tests were calculated from patient-based dichotomous outcomes (0 or ≥ 1 bone metastasis) and pairwise compared (McNemar test). For each index test, the agreement with the final diagnosis with regard to the number of bone metastases detected (0, 1-5, > 5) and the inter-reader agreement was calculated (kappa coefficients). RESULTS: Fifty-five patients constituted the final study population; 20 patients (36%) were classified as having bone metastatic disease as their final diagnosis. The patient-based diagnostic performances were (sensitivity, specificity, overall accuracy) PSMA-PET/CT (100%, 100%, 100%), NaF-PET/CT (95%, 97%, 96%) and WB-MRI (80%, 83%, 82%). The overall accuracy of PSMA-PET/CT was significantly more favourable compared to WB-MRI (p = 0.004), but not to NaF-PET/CT (p = 0.48). PSMA-PET/CT classified the number of bone metastases reliably compared to the final diagnosis (kappa coefficient 0.97) and with an "almost perfect" inter-reader agreement (kappa coefficient 0.93). CONCLUSIONS: The overall accuracy of PSMA-PET/CT was significantly more advantageous compared to WB-MRI, but not to NaF-PET/CT. KEY POINTS: • PSMA-PET/CT assessed the presence of bone metastases correctly in all 55 patients • PSMA-PET/CT was more advantageous compared to WB-MRI • No difference was found between PSMA-PET/CT and NaF-PET/CT.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone and bones; Magnetic resonance imaging; Metastasis; Positron emission tomography computed tomography; Prostatic neoplasms
Authors: Sebastian Mannweiler; Peter Amersdorfer; Slave Trajanoski; Jonathan A Terrett; David King; Gabor Mehes Journal: Pathol Oncol Res Date: 2008-09-18 Impact factor: 3.201
Authors: Mohsen Beheshti; Reza Vali; Peter Waldenberger; Friedrich Fitz; Michael Nader; Wolfgang Loidl; Gabriele Broinger; Franz Stoiber; Ignac Foglman; Werner Langsteger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-05-09 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: 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: Barbara J Amorim; Vinay Prabhu; Sara S Marco; Debra Gervais; Willian E Palmer; Pedram Heidari; Mark Vangel; Philip J Saylor; Onofrio A Catalano Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-09-06 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