Literature DB >> 30190303

Follow-up of Lesions with Equivocal Radiotracer Uptake on PSMA-Targeted PET in Patients with Prostate Cancer: Predictive Values of the PSMA-RADS-3A and PSMA-RADS-3B Categories.

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.   

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.
© 2019 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

Entities:  

Keywords:  PSMA-RADS-3A; PSMA-RADS-3B; PSMA-targeted PET; prostate cancer; prostate-specific membrane antigen

Year:  2018        PMID: 30190303      PMCID: PMC6448464          DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.118.217653

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0161-5505            Impact factor:   10.057


  31 in total

Review 1.  BIRADS classification in mammography.

Authors:  Corinne Balleyguier; Salma Ayadi; Kim Van Nguyen; Daniel Vanel; Clarisse Dromain; Robert Sigal
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2006-12-11       Impact factor: 3.528

2.  BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy.

Authors:  S G Orel; N Kay; C Reynolds; D C Sullivan
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2.

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

4.  Prospective Comparison of 18F-Fluoromethylcholine Versus 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in Prostate Cancer Patients Who Have Rising PSA After Curative Treatment and Are Being Considered for Targeted Therapy.

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

5.  Evaluation of Hybrid ⁶⁸Ga-PSMA Ligand PET/CT in 248 Patients with Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy.

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

6.  Comparison of Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen-Based 18F-DCFBC PET/CT to Conventional Imaging Modalities for Detection of Hormone-Naïve and Castration-Resistant Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

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

7.  Imaging of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma with PSMA-targeted ¹⁸F-DCFPyL PET/CT.

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

8.  New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

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

Review 9.  From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors.

Authors:  Richard L Wahl; Heather Jacene; Yvette Kasamon; Martin A Lodge
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 10.057

10.  Comparison of PET imaging with a (68)Ga-labelled PSMA ligand and (18)F-choline-based PET/CT for the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer.

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

View more
  8 in total

1.  Novel Structured Reporting Systems for Theranostic Radiotracers.

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

2.  Hereditary Spherocytosis Presenting as Diffuse Bone Marrow Activation and Splenomegaly on PSMA-Targeted 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT.

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

3.  Clinical insignificance of [18F]PSMA-1007 avid non-specific bone lesions: a retrospective evaluation.

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

4.  Effect of Point-Spread Function Reconstruction for Indeterminate PSMA-RADS-3A Lesions on PSMA-Targeted PET Imaging of Men with Prostate Cancer.

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

5.  Comparing the clinical performance and cost efficacy of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and [18F]PSMA-1007 in the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer: a Markov chain decision analysis.

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

6.  Prospective Comparison of PET Imaging with PSMA-Targeted 18F-DCFPyL Versus Na18F for Bone Lesion Detection in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

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

7.  Changing Threshold-Based Segmentation Has No Relevant Impact on Semi-Quantification in the Context of Structured Reporting for PSMA-PET/CT.

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

8.  The influence of digital PET/CT on diagnostic certainty and interrater reliability in [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT for recurrent prostate cancer.

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

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.