Yafu Yin1,2,3, Rudolf A Werner1,4, Takahiro Higuchi4, Constantin Lapa4, Kenneth J Pienta5, Martin G Pomper1,5, Michael A Gorin1,5, Steven P Rowe6,5. 1. The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany; and. 5. The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 6. The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland srowe8@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted PET imaging has become commonly used in patients with prostate cancer (PCa). The PSMA reporting and data system version 1.0 (PSMA-RADS version 1.0) categorizes lesions on the basis of the likelihood of PCa involvement, with PSMA-RADS-3A (soft-tissue) and PSMA-RADS-3B (bone) lesions being indeterminate for the presence of disease. We retrospectively reviewed the imaging follow-up of such lesions to determine the rate at which they underwent changes suggestive of underlying PCa. Methods: PET/CT imaging with 18F-DCFPyL was performed in 110 patients with PCa, and lesions were categorized according to PSMA-RADS version 1.0. The study reported herein is a retrospective analysis of those patients. Fifty-six of 110 (50.9%) patients were determined to have indeterminate PSMA-RADS-3A or PSMA-RADS-3B lesions, and 22 of 56 (39.3%) patients had adequate follow-up to be included in the analysis (median follow-up time was 10 mo [range, 3-22 mo]). The SUVmax of the lesions was obtained, and the ratios of SUVmax of the lesions to SUVmean of blood pool (SUVmax-lesion/SUVmean-bloodpool) were calculated. Predetermined criteria were used to evaluate the PSMA-RADS-3A and PSMA-RADS-3B lesions on follow-up imaging to determine whether they demonstrated evidence of underlying malignancy. Results: A total of 46 lesions in 22 patients were considered indeterminate for PCa (i.e., PSMA-RADS-3A [32 lesions] or PSMA-RADS-3B [14 lesions]) and were evaluable on follow-up imaging. Twenty-seven of 46 (58.7%) lesions demonstrated changes suggesting they were true-positive for PCa. These lesions included 24 of 32 (75.0%) PSMA-RADS-3A lesions and 3 of 14 (21.4%) lesions categorized as PSMA-RADS-3B. The ranges of SUVmax and SUVmax-lesion/SUVmean-bloodpool overlapped between those lesions demonstrating changes consistent with malignancy on follow-up imaging and those lesions that remained unchanged on follow-up. The presence of additional definitive sites of PCa (PSMA-RADS-4 and PSMA-RADS-5) increases the likelihood that indeterminate lesions will manifest as true-positive on follow-up imaging. Conclusion: PSMA-RADS-3A and PSMA-RADS-3B lesions are truly indeterminate in that proportions of findings in both categories demonstrate evidence of malignancy on follow-up imaging. Overall, PSMA-RADS-3A lesions are more likely than PSMA-RADS-3B lesions to represent sites of PCa, and this information should be considered when guiding patient therapy.
Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted PET imaging has become commonly used in patients with prostate cancer (PCa). The PSMA reporting and data system version 1.0 (PSMA-RADS version 1.0) categorizes lesions on the basis of the likelihood of PCa involvement, with PSMA-RADS-3A (soft-tissue) and PSMA-RADS-3B (bone) lesions being indeterminate for the presence of disease. We retrospectively reviewed the imaging follow-up of such lesions to determine the rate at which they underwent changes suggestive of underlying PCa. Methods: PET/CT imaging with 18F-DCFPyL was performed in 110 patients with PCa, and lesions were categorized according to PSMA-RADS version 1.0. The study reported herein is a retrospective analysis of those patients. Fifty-six of 110 (50.9%) patients were determined to have indeterminate PSMA-RADS-3A or PSMA-RADS-3B lesions, and 22 of 56 (39.3%) patients had adequate follow-up to be included in the analysis (median follow-up time was 10 mo [range, 3-22 mo]). The SUVmax of the lesions was obtained, and the ratios of SUVmax of the lesions to SUVmean of blood pool (SUVmax-lesion/SUVmean-bloodpool) were calculated. Predetermined criteria were used to evaluate the PSMA-RADS-3A and PSMA-RADS-3B lesions on follow-up imaging to determine whether they demonstrated evidence of underlying malignancy. Results: A total of 46 lesions in 22 patients were considered indeterminate for PCa (i.e., PSMA-RADS-3A [32 lesions] or PSMA-RADS-3B [14 lesions]) and were evaluable on follow-up imaging. Twenty-seven of 46 (58.7%) lesions demonstrated changes suggesting they were true-positive for PCa. These lesions included 24 of 32 (75.0%) PSMA-RADS-3A lesions and 3 of 14 (21.4%) lesions categorized as PSMA-RADS-3B. The ranges of SUVmax and SUVmax-lesion/SUVmean-bloodpool overlapped between those lesions demonstrating changes consistent with malignancy on follow-up imaging and those lesions that remained unchanged on follow-up. The presence of additional definitive sites of PCa (PSMA-RADS-4 and PSMA-RADS-5) increases the likelihood that indeterminate lesions will manifest as true-positive on follow-up imaging. Conclusion:PSMA-RADS-3A and PSMA-RADS-3B lesions are truly indeterminate in that proportions of findings in both categories demonstrate evidence of malignancy on follow-up imaging. Overall, PSMA-RADS-3A lesions are more likely than PSMA-RADS-3B lesions to represent sites of PCa, and this information should be considered when guiding patient therapy.
Authors: Jeffrey C Weinreb; Jelle O Barentsz; Peter L Choyke; Francois Cornud; Masoom A Haider; Katarzyna J Macura; Daniel Margolis; Mitchell D Schnall; Faina Shtern; Clare M Tempany; Harriet C Thoeny; Sadna Verma Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Joshua J Morigi; Phillip D Stricker; Pim J van Leeuwen; Reuben Tang; Bao Ho; Quoc Nguyen; George Hruby; Gerald Fogarty; Raj Jagavkar; Andrew Kneebone; Adam Hickey; Stefano Fanti; Lisa Tarlinton; Louise Emmett Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Matthias Eiber; Tobias Maurer; Michael Souvatzoglou; Ambros J Beer; Alexander Ruffani; Bernhard Haller; Frank-Philipp Graner; Hubert Kübler; Uwe Haberkorn; Michael Eisenhut; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Jürgen E Gschwend; Markus Schwaiger Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Steven P Rowe; Katarzyna J Macura; Anthony Ciarallo; Esther Mena; Amanda Blackford; Rosa Nadal; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Mario A Eisenberger; Michael A Carducci; Ashley E Ross; Philip W Kantoff; Daniel P Holt; Robert F Dannals; Ronnie C Mease; Martin G Pomper; Steve Y Cho Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Steven P Rowe; Michael A Gorin; Hans J Hammers; M Som Javadi; Hazem Hawasli; Zsolt Szabo; Steve Y Cho; Martin G Pomper; Mohamad E Allaf Journal: Ann Nucl Med Date: 2015-08-19 Impact factor: 2.668
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Christian M Zechmann; Anna Malcher; Matthias Eder; Michael Eisenhut; Heinz G Linhart; Tim Holland-Letz; Boris A Hadaschik; Frederik L Giesel; Jürgen Debus; Uwe Haberkorn Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-09-27 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Rudolf A Werner; Ralph A Bundschuh; Lena Bundschuh; Stefano Fanti; Mehrbod S Javadi; Takahiro Higuchi; Alexander Weich; Kenneth J Pienta; Andreas K Buck; Martin G Pomper; Michael A Gorin; Ken Herrmann; Constantin Lapa; Steven P Rowe Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Erin Gomez; Phuoc T Tran; Kenneth J Pienta; Martin G Pomper; Michael A Gorin; Steven P Rowe Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Evyn G Arnfield; Paul A Thomas; Matthew J Roberts; Anita M Pelecanos; Stuart C Ramsay; Charles Y Lin; Melissa J Latter; Peter L Garcia; David A Pattison Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Wajahat Khatri; Hyun Woo Chung; Rudolf A Werner; Jeffrey P Leal; Kenneth J Pienta; Martin A Lodge; Michael A Gorin; Martin G Pomper; Steven P Rowe Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-04-07
Authors: Ian Alberts; Clemens Mingels; Helle D Zacho; Sabine Lanz; Heiko Schöder; Axel Rominger; Marcel Zwahlen; Ali Afshar-Oromieh Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-11-13 Impact factor: 10.057
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
Authors: Patrick W Mihatsch; Matthias Beissert; Martin G Pomper; Thorsten A Bley; Anna K Seitz; Hubert Kübler; Andreas K Buck; Steven P Rowe; Sebastian E Serfling; Philipp E Hartrampf; Rudolf A Werner Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-01-06 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Ian Alberts; Jan-Niklas Hünermund; Christos Sachpekidis; Clemens Mingels; Viktor Fech; Karl Peter Bohn; Axel Rominger; Ali Afshar-Oromieh Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-04-15 Impact factor: 5.315