Peter Donato1, Matthew J Roberts1,2, Andrew Morton2, Samuel Kyle2,3, Geoff Coughlin1, Rachel Esler1, Nigel Dunglison1, Robert A Gardiner1,2,4,5, John Yaxley6,7. 1. Department of Urology, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, 4006, Australia. 2. The University of Queensland, Faculty of Medicine, Brisbane, Australia. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. 4. Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 5. Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia. 6. Department of Urology, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, 4006, Australia. john@wesleyurologyclinic.com.au. 7. The University of Queensland, Faculty of Medicine, Brisbane, Australia. john@wesleyurologyclinic.com.au.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Positron emission tomography (PET) for prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) represents a promising method for prostate cancer diagnosis and staging. Comparisons of PSMA-based tumour characterisation to multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) are limited, hence this study sought to compare the diagnostic accuracy of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT to mpMRI against radical prostatectomy (RP) whole gland histopathology. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent pre-operative mpMRI and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT followed by a RP was performed. Standard clinical parameters were collected. "Per patient" and "per lesion" analyses for image-based detection according to RP histopathology were described using sensitivity, specificity and other measures of diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients (median age 65.5 years, median PSA 7.35 ng/mL) underwent RP, resulting in a high-risk cohort (≥pT3 69%). Sensitivities for identification of index lesion, bilateral and multifocal disease were 90%, 21%, 19% for mpMRI and 93%, 42%, 34% for 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT. Histology analyses revealed 88 cancer foci of Gleason grades 3 + 3 (4%), 3 + 4 (64%), 4 + 3 (19%), 4 + 4 (3%) and ≥ 4 + 5 (10%), of which 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT correctly detected more foci (78%, AUC 0.817) than mpMRI (69%, AUC 0.729). CONCLUSIONS: 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT may better reflect RP histopathology compared to mpMRI when considering multifocal and bilateral disease. These findings may influence surgical planning, targeted biopsy and focal therapy strategies and require further research.
PURPOSE: Positron emission tomography (PET) for prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) represents a promising method for prostate cancer diagnosis and staging. Comparisons of PSMA-based tumour characterisation to multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) are limited, hence this study sought to compare the diagnostic accuracy of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT to mpMRI against radical prostatectomy (RP) whole gland histopathology. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent pre-operative mpMRI and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT followed by a RP was performed. Standard clinical parameters were collected. "Per patient" and "per lesion" analyses for image-based detection according to RP histopathology were described using sensitivity, specificity and other measures of diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients (median age 65.5 years, median PSA 7.35 ng/mL) underwent RP, resulting in a high-risk cohort (≥pT3 69%). Sensitivities for identification of index lesion, bilateral and multifocal disease were 90%, 21%, 19% for mpMRI and 93%, 42%, 34% for 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT. Histology analyses revealed 88 cancer foci of Gleason grades 3 + 3 (4%), 3 + 4 (64%), 4 + 3 (19%), 4 + 4 (3%) and ≥ 4 + 5 (10%), of which 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT correctly detected more foci (78%, AUC 0.817) than mpMRI (69%, AUC 0.729). CONCLUSIONS: 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT may better reflect RP histopathology compared to mpMRI when considering multifocal and bilateral disease. These findings may influence surgical planning, targeted biopsy and focal therapy strategies and require further research.
Entities:
Keywords:
Glutamate carboxypeptidase II, human; Magnetic resonance imaging; Positron-emission tomography; Prostatectomy,; Prostatic neoplasms
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Esther Mena; Liza Lindenberg; Stephen Adler; Sandra Bednarova; Rose Berman; Anita T Ton; Yolanda McKinney; Philip Eclarinal; Craig Hill; George Afari; Sibaprasad Bhattacharyya; Ronnie C Mease; Maria J Merino; Paula M Jacobs; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Martin G Pomper; Peter L Choyke Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Mariana Andozia Morini; Roberto Lodeiro Muller; Paulo César Barbosa de Castro Junior; Rafael José de Souza; Eliney Ferreira Faria Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-03-16 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Kenneth J Biehl; Feng-Ming Kong; Farrokh Dehdashti; Jian-Yue Jin; Sasa Mutic; Issam El Naqa; Barry A Siegel; Jeffrey D Bradley Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jonathan I Epstein; Lars Egevad; Mahul B Amin; Brett Delahunt; John R Srigley; Peter A Humphrey Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Jan P Radtke; Constantin Schwab; Maya B Wolf; Martin T Freitag; Celine D Alt; Claudia Kesch; Ionel V Popeneciu; Clemens Huettenbrink; Claudia Gasch; Tilman Klein; David Bonekamp; Stefan Duensing; Wilfried Roth; Svenja Schueler; Christian Stock; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Matthias Roethke; Markus Hohenfellner; Boris A Hadaschik Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Hashim U Ahmed; Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily; Louise C Brown; Rhian Gabe; Richard Kaplan; Mahesh K Parmar; Yolanda Collaco-Moraes; Katie Ward; Richard G Hindley; Alex Freeman; Alex P Kirkham; Robert Oldroyd; Chris Parker; Mark Emberton Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Tim Holland-Letz; Frederik L Giesel; Clemens Kratochwil; Walter Mier; Sabine Haufe; Nils Debus; Matthias Eder; Michael Eisenhut; Martin Schäfer; Oliver Neels; Markus Hohenfellner; Klaus Kopka; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Jürgen Debus; Uwe Haberkorn Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 9.236
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; Ely R Felker; Andrew T Lenis; Anthony E Sisk; Shadfar Bahri; Martin Allen-Auerbach; Wesley R Armstrong; Voraparee Suvannarerg; Teeravut Tubtawee; Tristan Grogan; David Elashoff; Matthias Eiber; Steven S Raman; Johannes Czernin; Robert E Reiter; Jeremie Calais Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-10-14 Impact factor: 11.082
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: Constantinos Zamboglou; Montserrat Carles; Tobias Fechter; Selina Kiefer; Kathrin Reichel; Thomas F Fassbender; Peter Bronsert; Goeran Koeber; Oliver Schilling; Juri Ruf; Martin Werner; Cordula A Jilg; Dimos Baltas; Michael Mix; Anca L Grosu Journal: Theranostics Date: 2019-04-13 Impact factor: 11.556
Authors: Albert El Hajj; Basel Yacoub; Mazen Mansour; Raja Khauli; Mohamad Bulbul; Samer Nassif; Mohamad B Haidar Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 1.817