Louise Emmett1, Ur Metser2, Glenn Bauman3, Rodney J Hicks4, Andrew Weickhardt5, Ian D Davis6, Shonit Punwani7, Greg Pond8, Sue Chua9, Bao Ho1, Edward Johnston7, Frederic Pouliot10, Andrew M Scott5. 1. St. Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia louise.emmett@svha.org.au. 2. University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada. 4. Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 5. Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia and Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 6. Monash University Eastern Health Clinical School, Box Hill, Victoria, Australia. 7. University College London, London, United Kingdom. 8. McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 9. Royal Marsden Hospital, London, United Kingdom; and. 10. CHU de Quebec and Université Laval, Quebec, Quebec, Canada.
Abstract
A significant proportion of men with rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels after radical prostatectomy (RP) fail prostate fossa (PF) salvage radiation treatment (SRT). This study was done to assess the ability of 18F-fluoromethylcholine (18F-FCH) PET/CT (hereafter referred to as 18F-FCH), 68Ga-HBED-CC PSMA-11 PET/CT (hereafter referred to as PSMA), and pelvic multiparametric MRI (hereafter referred to as pelvic MRI) to identify men who will best benefit from SRT. Methods: Prospective, multisite imaging studies were carried out in men who had rising PSA levels after RP, high-risk features, and negative/equivocal conventional imaging results and who were being considered for SRT. 18F-FCH (91/91), pelvic MRI (88/91), and PSMA (31/91) (Australia) were all performed within 2 wk. Imaging was interpreted by experienced local/central interpreters who were masked with regard to other imaging results, with consensus being reached for discordant interpretations. Expected management was documented before and after imaging, and data about all treatments and PSA levels were collected for 3 y. The treatment response to SRT was defined as a reduction in PSA levels of >50% without androgen deprivation therapy. Results: The median Gleason score, PSA level at imaging, and PSA doubling time were 8, 0.42 (interquartile range, 0.29-0.93) ng/mL, and 5.0 (interquartile range, 3.3-7.6) months. Recurrent prostate cancer was detected in 28% (25/88) by pelvic MRI, 32% (29/91) by 18F-FCH, and 42% (13/31) by PSMA. This recurrence was found within the PF in 21.5% (19/88), 13% (12/91), and 19% (6/31) and at sites outside the PF (extra-PF) in 8% (7/88), 19% (17/91), and 32% (10/31) by MRI, 18F-FCH, and PSMA, respectively (P < 0.004). A total of 94% (16/17) of extra-PF sites on 18F-FCH were within the pelvic MRI field. Intrapelvic extra-PF disease was detected in 90% (9/10) by PSMA and in 31% (5/16) by MRI. 18F-FCH changed management in 46% (42/91), and MRI changed management in 24% (21/88). PSMA provided additional management changes over 18F-FCH in 23% (7/31). The treatment response to SRT was higher in men with negative results or disease confined to the PF than in men with extra-PF disease (18F-FCH 73% [32/44] versus 33% [3/9] [P < 0.02], pelvic MRI 70% [32/46] versus 50% [2/4] [P was not significant], and PSMA 88% [7/8] versus 14% [1/7] [P < 0.005]). Men with negative imaging results (MRI, 18F-FCH, or PSMA) had high (78%) SRT response rates. Conclusion: 18F-FCH and PSMA had high detection rates for extra-PF disease in men with negative/equivocal conventional imaging results and rising PSA levels after RP. These findings affected management and treatment responses, suggesting an important role for PET in triaging men being considered for curative SRT.
A significant proportion of men with rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels after radical prostatectomy (RP) fail prostate fossa (PF) salvage radiation treatment (SRT). This study was done to assess the ability of 18F-fluoromethylcholine (18F-FCH) PET/CT (hereafter referred to as 18F-FCH), 68Ga-HBED-CC PSMA-11 PET/CT (hereafter referred to as PSMA), and pelvic multiparametric MRI (hereafter referred to as pelvic MRI) to identify men who will best benefit from SRT. Methods: Prospective, multisite imaging studies were carried out in men who had rising PSA levels after RP, high-risk features, and negative/equivocal conventional imaging results and who were being considered for SRT. 18F-FCH (91/91), pelvic MRI (88/91), and PSMA (31/91) (Australia) were all performed within 2 wk. Imaging was interpreted by experienced local/central interpreters who were masked with regard to other imaging results, with consensus being reached for discordant interpretations. Expected management was documented before and after imaging, and data about all treatments and PSA levels were collected for 3 y. The treatment response to SRT was defined as a reduction in PSA levels of >50% without androgen deprivation therapy. Results: The median Gleason score, PSA level at imaging, and PSA doubling time were 8, 0.42 (interquartile range, 0.29-0.93) ng/mL, and 5.0 (interquartile range, 3.3-7.6) months. Recurrent prostate cancer was detected in 28% (25/88) by pelvic MRI, 32% (29/91) by 18F-FCH, and 42% (13/31) by PSMA. This recurrence was found within the PF in 21.5% (19/88), 13% (12/91), and 19% (6/31) and at sites outside the PF (extra-PF) in 8% (7/88), 19% (17/91), and 32% (10/31) by MRI, 18F-FCH, and PSMA, respectively (P < 0.004). A total of 94% (16/17) of extra-PF sites on 18F-FCH were within the pelvic MRI field. Intrapelvic extra-PF disease was detected in 90% (9/10) by PSMA and in 31% (5/16) by MRI. 18F-FCH changed management in 46% (42/91), and MRI changed management in 24% (21/88). PSMA provided additional management changes over 18F-FCH in 23% (7/31). The treatment response to SRT was higher in men with negative results or disease confined to the PF than in men with extra-PF disease (18F-FCH 73% [32/44] versus 33% [3/9] [P < 0.02], pelvic MRI 70% [32/46] versus 50% [2/4] [P was not significant], and PSMA 88% [7/8] versus 14% [1/7] [P < 0.005]). Men with negative imaging results (MRI, 18F-FCH, or PSMA) had high (78%) SRT response rates. Conclusion:18F-FCH and PSMA had high detection rates for extra-PF disease in men with negative/equivocal conventional imaging results and rising PSA levels after RP. These findings affected management and treatment responses, suggesting an important role for PET in triaging men being considered for curative SRT.
Authors: Thomas Zilli; Sandra Jorcano; Nicolas Peguret; Francesca Caparrotti; Alberto Hidalgo; Haleem G Khan; Hansjörg Vees; Raymond Miralbell Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Kazuhiro Kitajima; Robert P Hartman; Adam T Froemming; Clinton E Hagen; Naoki Takahashi; Akira Kawashima Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Pim J van Leeuwen; Phillip Stricker; George Hruby; Andrew Kneebone; Francis Ting; Ben Thompson; Quoc Nguyen; Bao Ho; Louise Emmett Journal: BJU Int Date: 2016-01-24 Impact factor: 5.588
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: Berrend G Muller; Aradhana Kaushal; Sandeep Sankineni; Elena Lita; Anthony N Hoang; Arvin K George; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Jochen Kruecker; Pingkun Yan; Sheng Xu; Jean J de la Rosette; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2015-08-08 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Andrew J Stephenson; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan; Thomas M Pisansky; Kevin M Slawin; Eric A Klein; Mitchell S Anscher; Jeff M Michalski; Howard M Sandler; Daniel W Lin; Jeffrey D Forman; Michael J Zelefsky; Larry L Kestin; Claus G Roehrborn; Charles N Catton; Theodore L DeWeese; Stanley L Liauw; Richard K Valicenti; Deborah A Kuban; Alan Pollack Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-05-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andrew J Stephenson; Shahrokh F Shariat; Michael J Zelefsky; Michael W Kattan; E Brian Butler; Bin S Teh; Eric A Klein; Patrick A Kupelian; Claus G Roehrborn; David A Pistenmaa; Heather D Pacholke; Stanley L Liauw; Matthew S Katz; Steven A Leibel; Peter T Scardino; Kevin M Slawin Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-03-17 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Bernd Vollnberg; Ian Alberts; Alexandrine Bähler; Christos Sachpekidis; Lotte Dijkstra; Fabian Haupt; Silvan Boxler; Tobias Gross; Tim Holland-Letz; George Thalmann; Johannes Heverhagen; Axel Rominger; Kirsi Härmä; Martin H Maurer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-07-27 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ian Leigh Alberts; Svenja Elizabeth Seide; Clemens Mingels; Karl Peter Bohn; Kuangyu Shi; Helle D Zacho; Axel Rominger; Ali Afshar-Oromieh Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-02-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Constantin Lapa; Ursula Nestle; Nathalie L Albert; Christian Baues; Ambros Beer; Andreas Buck; Volker Budach; Rebecca Bütof; Stephanie E Combs; Thorsten Derlin; Matthias Eiber; Wolfgang P Fendler; Christian Furth; Cihan Gani; Eleni Gkika; Anca-L Grosu; Christoph Henkenberens; Harun Ilhan; Steffen Löck; Simone Marnitz-Schulze; Matthias Miederer; Michael Mix; Nils H Nicolay; Maximilian Niyazi; Christoph Pöttgen; Claus M Rödel; Imke Schatka; Sarah M Schwarzenboeck; Andrei S Todica; Wolfgang Weber; Simone Wegen; Thomas Wiegel; Constantinos Zamboglou; Daniel Zips; Klaus Zöphel; Sebastian Zschaeck; Daniela Thorwarth; Esther G C Troost Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 3.621