Anna Yordanova1, Paula Linden1, Stefan Hauser2, Michael Meisenheimer1, Stefan Kürpig1, Georg Feldmann3, Florian C Gaertner1, Markus Essler1, Hojjat Ahmadzadehfar4. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25, 53127, Bonn, Germany. 2. Department of Urology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany. 3. Department of Internal Medicine 3, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25, 53127, Bonn, Germany. hojjat.ahmadzadehfar@ukbonn.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Data are sparse regarding the feasibility of radioligand therapy (RLT) with [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 as a retreatment. We aimed to assess the outcome and safety of rechallenge PSMA-RLT in patients with progressive prostatic cancer who previously benefited from this therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who received rechallenge therapy at our department from January 2015 to March 2018 were assessed. Non-haematological and haematological adverse events were evaluated from laboratory data and clinical reports and were graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v. 5.0). Time to prostate-specific-antigen (PSA) progression and the overall survival (OS) rate of the study patients were calculated from the date of the first rechallenge cycle. Furthermore, the OS calculated from the first cycle baseline PSMA-RLT was compared with the survival of patients who received only baseline PSMA-RLT. The response data were determined using [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-PET/CT and measurements of the tumour marker PSA. RESULTS: Included in this retrospective study were 30 patients who were initially treated with a median of 3 cycles (range 1-5) of PSMA-RLT and were eventually retreated after a median of 6 months (range 2-26). Each patient received a median of 3 (range 1-6) rechallenge cycles. None of the patients experienced a disabling or life-threatening grade 4 adverse event according to the Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC). Grade 3 toxicity occurred in 8 patients (27%). Serious adverse events included leucopoenia (n = 2), neutropoenia (n = 1), anaemia (n = 4), thrombopenia (n = 4) and elevated renal parameters (n = 1). Irreversible adverse events occurred in 21 patients (70%). The permanent adverse events were mild/moderate (CTC grade 1/2) in 19 patients and serious (CTC grade 3) in two patients, respectively. According to PSA measurements, 75-90% of patients showed a benefit (response/stable) from the first 4 rechallenge cycles. The median OS was 12 months calculated from the first rechallenge cycle and 25 months calculated from the first cycle baseline PSMA-RLT. For comparison, the median OS in patients who received only baseline PSMA-RLT was 9 months. The difference according to the logrank test was significant: p value <0.001. Patients with a PSA decrease after the first cycle of rechallenge PSMA-RLT survived a median of 19 months, while patients with a PSA increase survived only 6 months. CONCLUSION: Rechallenge prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) therapy has an acceptable safety profile. The majority of the retreated patients benefited from the rechallenge therapy. Patients who showed a biochemical response achieved a longer OS compared to patients who did not respond. The median OS was significantly longer in patients after rechallenge PSMA-RLT than in patients who received only baseline PSMA-RLT.
BACKGROUND: Data are sparse regarding the feasibility of radioligand therapy (RLT) with [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 as a retreatment. We aimed to assess the outcome and safety of rechallenge PSMA-RLT in patients with progressive prostatic cancer who previously benefited from this therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients who received rechallenge therapy at our department from January 2015 to March 2018 were assessed. Non-haematological and haematological adverse events were evaluated from laboratory data and clinical reports and were graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v. 5.0). Time to prostate-specific-antigen (PSA) progression and the overall survival (OS) rate of the study patients were calculated from the date of the first rechallenge cycle. Furthermore, the OS calculated from the first cycle baseline PSMA-RLT was compared with the survival of patients who received only baseline PSMA-RLT. The response data were determined using [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-PET/CT and measurements of the tumour marker PSA. RESULTS: Included in this retrospective study were 30 patients who were initially treated with a median of 3 cycles (range 1-5) of PSMA-RLT and were eventually retreated after a median of 6 months (range 2-26). Each patient received a median of 3 (range 1-6) rechallenge cycles. None of the patients experienced a disabling or life-threatening grade 4 adverse event according to the Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC). Grade 3 toxicity occurred in 8 patients (27%). Serious adverse events included leucopoenia (n = 2), neutropoenia (n = 1), anaemia (n = 4), thrombopenia (n = 4) and elevated renal parameters (n = 1). Irreversible adverse events occurred in 21 patients (70%). The permanent adverse events were mild/moderate (CTC grade 1/2) in 19 patients and serious (CTC grade 3) in two patients, respectively. According to PSA measurements, 75-90% of patients showed a benefit (response/stable) from the first 4 rechallenge cycles. The median OS was 12 months calculated from the first rechallenge cycle and 25 months calculated from the first cycle baseline PSMA-RLT. For comparison, the median OS in patients who received only baseline PSMA-RLT was 9 months. The difference according to the logrank test was significant: p value <0.001. Patients with a PSA decrease after the first cycle of rechallenge PSMA-RLT survived a median of 19 months, while patients with a PSA increase survived only 6 months. CONCLUSION: Rechallenge prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) therapy has an acceptable safety profile. The majority of the retreated patients benefited from the rechallenge therapy. Patients who showed a biochemical response achieved a longer OS compared to patients who did not respond. The median OS was significantly longer in patients after rechallenge PSMA-RLT than in patients who received only baseline PSMA-RLT.
Authors: Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Henrik Hetzheim; Clemens Kratochwil; Martina Benesova; Matthias Eder; Oliver C Neels; Michael Eisenhut; Wolfgang Kübler; Tim Holland-Letz; Frederik L Giesel; Walter Mier; Klaus Kopka; Uwe Haberkorn Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-08-20 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: M Santoni; M Scarpelli; R Mazzucchelli; A Lopez-Beltran; L Cheng; S Cascinu; R Montironi Journal: J Biol Regul Homeost Agents Date: 2014 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 1.711
Authors: Martina Benešová; Martin Schäfer; Ulrike Bauder-Wüst; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Clemens Kratochwil; Walter Mier; Uwe Haberkorn; Klaus Kopka; Matthias Eder Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: P Mhawech-Fauceglia; S Zhang; L Terracciano; G Sauter; A Chadhuri; F R Herrmann; R Penetrante Journal: Histopathology Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: Sigrid A Rajasekaran; Gopalakrishnapillai Anilkumar; Eri Oshima; James U Bowie; He Liu; Warren Heston; Neil H Bander; Ayyappan K Rajasekaran Journal: Mol Biol Cell Date: 2003-10-03 Impact factor: 4.138
Authors: Hojjat Ahmadzadehfar; Kambiz Rahbar; Stefan Kürpig; Martin Bögemann; Michael Claesener; Elisabeth Eppard; Florian Gärtner; Sebastian Rogenhofer; Michael Schäfers; Markus Essler Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2015-06-20 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Philipp E Hartrampf; Ralph A Bundschuh; Franz-Xaver Weinzierl; Sebastian E Serfling; Aleksander Kosmala; Anna Katharina Seitz; Hubert Kübler; Andreas K Buck; Markus Essler; Rudolf A Werner Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-07-19 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Lucia Zisser; Josef Yu; André Oszwald; Tim Wollenweber; Elisabeth Kretschmer-Chott; Bernhard Grubmüller; Gero Kramer; Shahrokh F Shariat; Markus Mitterhauser; Chrysoula Vraka; Marcus Hacker; Alexander R Haug; Sazan Rasul Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2022-09-19 Impact factor: 1.698
Authors: Hian Liang Huang; Aaron Kian Ti Tong; Sue Ping Thang; Sean Xuexian Yan; Winnie Wing Chuen Lam; Kelvin Siu Hoong Loke; Charlene Yu Lin Tang; Lenith Tai Jit Cheng; Gideon Su Kai Ooi; Han Chung Low; Butch Maulion Magsombol; Wei Ying Tham; Charles Xian Yang Goh; Colin Jingxian Tan; Yiu Ming Khor; Sumbul Zaheer; Pushan Bharadwaj; Wanying Xie; David Chee Eng Ng Journal: Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-01-25
Authors: Hojjat Ahmadzadehfar; Ralf Matern; Richard P Baum; Robert Seifert; Katharina Kessel; Martin Bögemann; Clemens Kratochwil; Hendrik Rathke; Harun Ilhan; Hanna Svirydenka; Mike Sathekge; Levent Kabasakal; Anna Yordanova; Francisco Osvaldo Garcia-Perez; Kalevi Kairemo; Masha Maharaj; Diana Paez; Irene Virgolini; Kambiz Rahbar Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Sazan Rasul; Tim Wollenweber; Lucia Zisser; Elisabeth Kretschmer-Chott; Bernhard Grubmüller; Gero Kramer; Shahrokh F Shariat; Harald Eidherr; Markus Mitterhauser; Chrysoula Vraka; Werner Langsteger; Marcus Hacker; Alexander R Haug Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 6.639
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