Louise Emmett1, Megan Crumbaker2, Bao Ho3, Kathy Willowson4, Peter Eu5, Lalith Ratnayake6, Richard Epstein2, Ashley Blanksby3, Lisa Horvath7, Alex Guminski8, Kate Mahon9, Craig Gedye10, Charlotte Yin11, Phillip Stricker7, Anthony M Joshua2. 1. Department of Theranostics, St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, Australia; Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: Louise.emmett@svha.org.au. 2. Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, Australia; Department of Medical Oncology, Kinghorn Cancer Centre, St Vincents Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 3. Department of Theranostics, St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 4. University of Sydney, Australia. 5. Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 6. Department of Medical Oncology, Kinghorn Cancer Centre, St Vincents Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 7. Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, Australia. 8. Department of Medical Oncology, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 9. Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Sydney, Australia. 10. Department of Medical Oncology, Calvary Mater Hospital, Newcastle, Australia. 11. Department of Theranostics, St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, Australia; Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 177Lu-PSMA-617 (Lu-PSMA) is an emerging therapy in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Paired theranostic agents have the potential to visually identify phenotypes that will respond to targeted therapy. This study examined the value of 68Ga-HBEDD PSMA-11; prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) in predicting treatment response and disease progression in Lu-PSMA therapy within the context of a phase 2 prospective pilot trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with progressive, symptomatic metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with antiandrogens (abiraterone and/or enzalutamide) and taxane-based chemotherapy were prospectively enrolled. Eligibility criteria included uptake on PSMA PET above or equal to liver activity, with no 18F-Fluoro-deoxyglucose (FDG) PET-discordant disease. Men received up to 4 cycles of Lu-PSMA at 6 weekly intervals. Repeat FDG/PSMA PET imaging was performed after completion of therapy or at prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression. The study assessed treatment response to Lu-PSMA using PSA response and correlated treatment response (PSA) to molecular imaging parameters at enrollment. RESULTS: Fourteen of 18 men screened underwent Lu-PSMA therapy. Ten (71%) of 14 had a PSA response (mean reduction, 59%). A ≥ 50% reduction in PSA occurred in 5 (36%), and ≥ 30% in 9 (64%). PSMA PET standardized uptake value (SUV) at screening was predictive of ≥ 30% PSA reduction: SUV max value 17 ± 9 versus 44 ± 15 (P < .007), and PSMA SUV mean 6 ± 4 versus 10 ± 4 (P < .04). FDG parameters alone, and volume or site of disease did not predict PSA response. No imaging parameters predicted ≥ 50% PSA reduction. Nine of 14 men were reimaged after treatment, revealing 3 distinct patterns of progression. CONCLUSION: PSMA PET plays an important role in predicting treatment response to Lu-PSMA and in identifying subsequent patterns of failure, which may aid in determining the next best treatment options.
BACKGROUND: 177Lu-PSMA-617 (Lu-PSMA) is an emerging therapy in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Paired theranostic agents have the potential to visually identify phenotypes that will respond to targeted therapy. This study examined the value of 68Ga-HBEDD PSMA-11; prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) in predicting treatment response and disease progression in Lu-PSMA therapy within the context of a phase 2 prospective pilot trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with progressive, symptomatic metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with antiandrogens (abiraterone and/or enzalutamide) and taxane-based chemotherapy were prospectively enrolled. Eligibility criteria included uptake on PSMA PET above or equal to liver activity, with no 18F-Fluoro-deoxyglucose (FDG) PET-discordant disease. Men received up to 4 cycles of Lu-PSMA at 6 weekly intervals. Repeat FDG/PSMA PET imaging was performed after completion of therapy or at prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression. The study assessed treatment response to Lu-PSMA using PSA response and correlated treatment response (PSA) to molecular imaging parameters at enrollment. RESULTS: Fourteen of 18 men screened underwent Lu-PSMA therapy. Ten (71%) of 14 had a PSA response (mean reduction, 59%). A ≥ 50% reduction in PSA occurred in 5 (36%), and ≥ 30% in 9 (64%). PSMA PET standardized uptake value (SUV) at screening was predictive of ≥ 30% PSA reduction: SUV max value 17 ± 9 versus 44 ± 15 (P < .007), and PSMA SUV mean 6 ± 4 versus 10 ± 4 (P < .04). FDG parameters alone, and volume or site of disease did not predict PSA response. No imaging parameters predicted ≥ 50% PSA reduction. Nine of 14 men were reimaged after treatment, revealing 3 distinct patterns of progression. CONCLUSION:PSMA PET plays an important role in predicting treatment response to Lu-PSMA and in identifying subsequent patterns of failure, which may aid in determining the next best treatment options.
Authors: Kyle Current; Catherine Meyer; Clara E Magyar; Christine E Mona; Joel Almajano; Roger Slavik; Andreea D Stuparu; Chloe Cheng; David W Dawson; Caius G Radu; Johannes Czernin; Katharina Lueckerath Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-01-13 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Mohammad S Sadaghiani; Sara Sheikhbahaei; Rudolf A Werner; Kenneth J Pienta; Martin G Pomper; Lilja B Solnes; Michael A Gorin; Nae-Yuh Wang; Steven P Rowe Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2021-04-08 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Panagiotis J Vlachostergios; Muhammad Junaid Niaz; Myrto Skafida; Seyed Ali Mosallaie; Charlene Thomas; Paul J Christos; Joseph R Osborne; Ana M Molina; David M Nanus; Neil Harrison Bander; Scott T Tagawa Journal: Prostate Date: 2021-01-19 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Gary L Griffiths; Crystal Vasquez; Freddy Escorcia; Jeff Clanton; Liza Lindenberg; Esther Mena; Peter L Choyke Journal: Adv Drug Deliv Rev Date: 2021-12-20 Impact factor: 15.470
Authors: Amanda Kristiansson; Anders Örbom; Jonas Ahlstedt; Helena Karlsson; Wahed Zedan; Magnus Gram; Bo Åkerström; Sven-Erik Strand; Mohamed Altai; Joanna Strand; Oskar Vilhelmsson Timmermand Journal: Biomolecules Date: 2021-02-10
Authors: John Violet; Shahneen Sandhu; Amir Iravani; Justin Ferdinandus; Sue-Ping Thang; Grace Kong; Aravind Ravi Kumar; Tim Akhurst; David A Pattison; Alexis Beaulieu; Jennifer Mooi; Ben Tran; Christina Guo; Victor Kalff; Declan G Murphy; Price Jackson; Peter Eu; Mark Scalzo; Scott Williams; Rodney J Hicks; Michael S Hofman Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Daniel Groener; Cam Tu Nguyen; Justus Baumgarten; Benjamin Bockisch; Karen Davis; Christian Happel; Nicolai Mader; Christina Nguyen Ngoc; Jennifer Wichert; Severine Banek; Philipp Mandel; Felix K H Chun; Nikolaos Tselis; Frank Grünwald; Amir Sabet Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2021-07-03 Impact factor: 3.138