Nader Hirmas1, Akram Al-Ibraheem2, Ken Herrmann3, Abedalatif Alsharif1, Haider Muhsin1, Jamal Khader4, Ali Al-Daghmin5, Samer Salah6. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman, Jordan. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman, Jordan. aibraheem@khcc.jo. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Germany. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman, Jordan. 5. Department of Uro-Oncology Surgery, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman, Jordan. 6. Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman, Jordan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In this retrospective study, we compared the diagnostic value of 68Gallium prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography ([68Ga]PSMA PET/CT) in primary staging of patients with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa), in comparison to CT, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and bone scans, and we explored its overall impact on patients' management plan. PROCEDURES: Patients with pathological confirmation of PCa with high-risk disease were included in this study. Information on patient demographics, clinical and histopathological findings with Gleason score and initial prostate specific antigen PSA levels, and radiological findings for CT, MRI, bone scan, and [68Ga]PSMA PET/CT were retrieved. We stratified the concordance and discordance of each imaging modality on per-patient and per-lesion-site bases. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients with high-risk disease were included in this study. [68Ga]PSMA PET/CT revealed a significantly higher concordance rate (90 %) compared to the concordance rates of bone scan (75 %), MRI (73 %), and CT (60 %). [68Ga]PSMA PET/CT had a similar accuracy to MRI in detecting prostate lesions but a higher accuracy for suspicious pelvic lymph nodes (95.2 % vs. 80 %). It also superseded CT scan in detecting suspicious pelvic lymph nodes (95.2 % vs. 75 %) and extra-pelvic lymph nodes (100 % vs. 75 %), as well as bone lesions via bone scan (100 % vs. 62.5 %). [68Ga]PSMA PET/CT changed the management in 11 patients (52 %). CONCLUSIONS: [68Ga]PSMA PET/CT is an invaluable imaging modality in the assessment of primary high-risk PCa with great potential for the detection of lymph node spread and bone metastases that would impact the management plan.
PURPOSE: In this retrospective study, we compared the diagnostic value of 68Gallium prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography ([68Ga]PSMA PET/CT) in primary staging of patients with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa), in comparison to CT, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and bone scans, and we explored its overall impact on patients' management plan. PROCEDURES: Patients with pathological confirmation of PCa with high-risk disease were included in this study. Information on patient demographics, clinical and histopathological findings with Gleason score and initial prostate specific antigenPSA levels, and radiological findings for CT, MRI, bone scan, and [68Ga]PSMA PET/CT were retrieved. We stratified the concordance and discordance of each imaging modality on per-patient and per-lesion-site bases. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients with high-risk disease were included in this study. [68Ga]PSMA PET/CT revealed a significantly higher concordance rate (90 %) compared to the concordance rates of bone scan (75 %), MRI (73 %), and CT (60 %). [68Ga]PSMA PET/CT had a similar accuracy to MRI in detecting prostate lesions but a higher accuracy for suspicious pelvic lymph nodes (95.2 % vs. 80 %). It also superseded CT scan in detecting suspicious pelvic lymph nodes (95.2 % vs. 75 %) and extra-pelvic lymph nodes (100 % vs. 75 %), as well as bone lesions via bone scan (100 % vs. 62.5 %). [68Ga]PSMA PET/CT changed the management in 11 patients (52 %). CONCLUSIONS: [68Ga]PSMA PET/CT is an invaluable imaging modality in the assessment of primary high-risk PCa with great potential for the detection of lymph node spread and bone metastases that would impact the management plan.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone scan; CT scan; High risk; MRI; Nuclear medicine; PET/CT; PSMA; Primary staging; Prostate cancer; Theranostics
Authors: C Artigas; J Alexiou; C Garcia; Z Wimana; F-X Otte; T Gil; R Van Velthoven; P Flamen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-10-27 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Sophie Bourgeois; Pieterjan Gykiere; Lode Goethals; Hendrik Everaert; Frank W De Geeter Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Lars Budäus; Sami-Ramzi Leyh-Bannurah; Georg Salomon; Uwe Michl; Hans Heinzer; Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen; Thomas Steuber; Clemens Rosenbaum Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: G L Wright; B M Grob; C Haley; K Grossman; K Newhall; D Petrylak; J Troyer; A Konchuba; P F Schellhammer; R Moriarty Journal: Urology Date: 1996-08 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Pim J van Leeuwen; Louise Emmett; Bao Ho; Warick Delprado; Francis Ting; Quoc Nguyen; Phillip D Stricker Journal: BJU Int Date: 2016-06-18 Impact factor: 5.588
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: Divya Yadav; Hyunsoo Hwang; Wei Qiao; Rituraj Upadhyay; Brian F Chapin; Chad Tang; Ana Aparicio; Maria A Lopez-Olivo; Stella K Kang; Homer A Macapinlac; Tharakeswara K Bathala; Devaki Shilpa Surasi Journal: Radiol Imaging Cancer Date: 2022-03
Authors: Ida Sonni; Matthias Eiber; Wolfgang P Fendler; Rejah M Alano; Sitaram S Vangala; Amar U Kishan; Nicholas Nickols; Matthew B Rettig; Robert E Reiter; Johannes Czernin; Jeremie Calais Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-01-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Shaojun Zhu; Nader Hirmas; Jeremie Calais; Matthias Eiber; Boris Hadaschik; Martin Stuschke; Ken Herrmann; Johannes Czernin; Amar U Kishan; Nicholas G Nickols; David Elashoff; Wolfgang P Fendler Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Daniela A Ferraro; Fabienne Lehner; Daniel Eberli; Irene A Burger; Anton S Becker; Benedikt Kranzbühler; Ken Kudura; Iliana Mebert; Michael Messerli; Thomas Hermanns Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Sarah Piron; Jeroen Verhoeven; Jan Courtyn; Ken Kersemans; Benedicte Descamps; Leen Pieters; Anne Vral; Christian Vanhove; Filip De Vos Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-09-21 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Lena M Mittlmeier; Matthias Brendel; Leonie Beyer; Nathalie L Albert; Andrei Todica; Mathias J Zacherl; Vera Wenter; Annika Herlemann; Alexander Kretschmer; Stephan T Ledderose; Nina-Sophie Schmidt-Hegemann; Wolfgang G Kunz; Jens Ricke; Peter Bartenstein; Harun Ilhan; Marcus Unterrainer Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 6.244