Thomas A Hope1,2,3,4, Jeremy Z Goodman4, Isabel E Allen5, Jeremie Calais6, Wolfgang P Fendler7, Peter R Carroll3,4. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, UCSF, San Francisco, California thomas.hope@ucsf.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, San Francisco VA Medical Center, San Francisco, California. 3. UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California. 4. Department of Urology, UCSF, San Francisco, California. 5. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, UCSF, San Francisco, California. 6. Ahmanson Translational Imaging Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, UCLA, Los Angeles, California; and. 7. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Abstract
68Ga-PSMA-11 PET is used to stage patients with prostate cancer. We performed an updated metaanalysis that separates imaging at the time of diagnosis and at the time of biochemical recurrence and focuses on pathology correlation in both populations. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases using the PRISMA statement. Quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool 2. In total, 1,811 studies were screened, 58 were analyzed, 41 were included for qualitative synthesis, and 29 were included for quantitative analysis. A random-effect model and a hierarchical summary receiver-operating-characteristic model were used to summarize the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value, and accuracy for pelvic lymph nodes in initial staging compared with pathology at prostatectomy and the PPV for lesions with pathologic correlation in those with biochemical recurrence. We also summarized the detection rate of 68Ga-PSMA-11 in those with biochemical recurrence stratified by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at the time of imaging. Results: The metaanalysis of 68Ga-PSMA-11 at initial staging demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of 0.74 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.51-0.89) and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.85-0.99), respectively, using nodal pathology at prostatectomy as a gold standard. At biochemical recurrence, the PPV was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.96-1.00). The detection rate was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.55-0.70), with a PSA of less than 2.0 and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91-0.96) with a PSA of more than 2.0. Conclusion: 68Ga-PSMA-11 performed well for the localization of metastatic prostate cancer at initial staging and at the time of biochemical recurrence.
68Ga-PSMA-11 PET is used to stage patients with prostate cancer. We performed an updated metaanalysis that separates imaging at the time of diagnosis and at the time of biochemical recurrence and focuses on pathology correlation in both populations. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases using the PRISMA statement. Quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool 2. In total, 1,811 studies were screened, 58 were analyzed, 41 were included for qualitative synthesis, and 29 were included for quantitative analysis. A random-effect model and a hierarchical summary receiver-operating-characteristic model were used to summarize the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value, and accuracy for pelvic lymph nodes in initial staging compared with pathology at prostatectomy and the PPV for lesions with pathologic correlation in those with biochemical recurrence. We also summarized the detection rate of 68Ga-PSMA-11 in those with biochemical recurrence stratified by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at the time of imaging. Results: The metaanalysis of 68Ga-PSMA-11 at initial staging demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of 0.74 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.51-0.89) and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.85-0.99), respectively, using nodal pathology at prostatectomy as a gold standard. At biochemical recurrence, the PPV was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.96-1.00). The detection rate was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.55-0.70), with a PSA of less than 2.0 and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91-0.96) with a PSA of more than 2.0. Conclusion: 68Ga-PSMA-11 performed well for the localization of metastatic prostate cancer at initial staging and at the time of biochemical recurrence.
Authors: Francesco Ceci; Christian Uprimny; Bernhard Nilica; Llanos Geraldo; Dorota Kendler; Alexander Kroiss; Jasmin Bektic; Wolfgang Horninger; Peter Lukas; Clemens Decristoforo; Paolo Castellucci; Stefano Fanti; Irene J Virgolini Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-05-15 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: A Afshar-Oromieh; U Haberkorn; H P Schlemmer; M Fenchel; M Eder; M Eisenhut; B A Hadaschik; A Kopp-Schneider; M Röthke Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-12-19 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Matthias Eiber; Tobias Maurer; Michael Souvatzoglou; Ambros J Beer; Alexander Ruffani; Bernhard Haller; Frank-Philipp Graner; Hubert Kübler; Uwe Haberkorn; Michael Eisenhut; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Jürgen E Gschwend; Markus Schwaiger Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: A Afshar-Oromieh; A Malcher; M Eder; M Eisenhut; H G Linhart; B A Hadaschik; T Holland-Letz; F L Giesel; C Kratochwil; S Haufe; U Haberkorn; C M Zechmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-11-24 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
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; Eleni Avtzi; Frederik L Giesel; Tim Holland-Letz; Heinz G Linhart; Matthias Eder; Michael Eisenhut; Silvan Boxler; Boris A Hadaschik; Clemens Kratochwil; Wilko Weichert; Klaus Kopka; Jürgen Debus; Uwe Haberkorn Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-11-20 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Marcin Czarniecki; Joanna H Shih; Stephanie A Harmon; Piyush K Agarwal; Andrea B Apolo; Deborah E Citrin; James L Gulley; Mukesh Harisinghani; Ravi A Madan; Adam R Metwalli; Edmond Paquette; Peter A Pinto; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Lindsay S Rowe; Bradford J Wood; Paula M Jacobs; Liza Lindenberg; William Dahut; Peter L Choyke Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2019-10-15 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Lars J Petersen; Julie B Nielsen; Niels C Langkilde; Astrid Petersen; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Nandita M De Souza; Katja De Paepe; Rune V Fisker; Dennis T Arp; Jesper Carl; Uwe Haberkorn; Helle D Zacho Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-06-12 Impact factor: 4.226
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: Daniela A Ferraro; Urs J Muehlematter; Helena I Garcia Schüler; Niels J Rupp; Martin Huellner; Michael Messerli; Jan Hendrik Rüschoff; Edwin E G W Ter Voert; Thomas Hermanns; Irene A Burger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-09-14 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Jeremie Calais; Francesco Ceci; Matthias Eiber; Thomas A Hope; Michael S Hofman; Christoph Rischpler; Tore Bach-Gansmo; Cristina Nanni; Bital Savir-Baruch; David Elashoff; Tristan Grogan; Magnus Dahlbom; Roger Slavik; Jeannine Gartmann; Kathleen Nguyen; Vincent Lok; Hossein Jadvar; Amar U Kishan; Matthew B Rettig; Robert E Reiter; Wolfgang P Fendler; Johannes Czernin Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2019-07-30 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Liang Dong; Yun Su; Yinjie Zhu; Mark C Markowski; Mei Xin; Michael A Gorin; Baijun Dong; Jiahua Pan; Martin G Pomper; Jianjun Liu; Kenneth J Pienta; Wei Xue; Steven P Rowe Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 10.057