Manoj Gupta1, Partha Sarathi Choudhury1, Sudhir Rawal2, Harish Chandra Goel3, S Avinash Rao4. 1. 1Department of Nuclear Medicine, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, Delhi, India. 2. 2Department of Uro - Gynae Surgical Oncology, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, Delhi, India. 3. 3Amity Centre for Radiation Biology, Amity University, Noida, Uttar Pradesh India. 4. 4Department of Radiology, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, Delhi, India.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to compare response evaluation criteria in solid tumours 1.1 (RECIST 1.1), positron emission tomography response criteria in solid tumours (PERCIST), European organisation for research and treatment of cancer (EORTC), and MD Anderson (MDA) criteria for response assessment by Gallium 68-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography-computed tomography (Ga68-PSMA PET-CT) in metastatic adenocarcinoma prostate cancer (mPCa) patients with biochemical progression. METHODS: Eighty-eight mPCa patients with pre and post treatment Ga68-PSMA PET-CT were included. A ≥ 25% increase and ≥ 2 ng/ml above the nadir if prostate specific antigen (PSA) drop or ≥ 2 ng/ml above the baseline if PSA does not drop was considered as biochemical progression. RECIST 1.1 and MDA criteria for morphology and PERCIST and EORTC criteria for molecular response were investigated. Percentages of progressive disease (PD), partial response (PR), and stable disease (SD) were calculated. Chi-square test was used for statistical significance. RESULTS: Proportion of PD, SD, and PR by RECIST 1.1 and MDA criteria were 44 (50.57%), 39 (44.83%), 4 (4.6%), and 33 (39.76%), 48 (57.83%), 2 (2.41%) respectively. Proportion of PD, SD, and PR by PERCIST and EORTC criteria were 71 (80.68%), 11 (12.50%), 6 (6.82%), and 74 (84.09%), 8 (9.09%), 6 (6.82%) respectively. Chi-square test showed statistically significant (P < 0.05) higher proportion of progression detected by both molecular criteria as compare to both morphological criteria. CONCLUSION: We concluded that for Ga68-PSMA PET-CT response evaluation, molecular criteria performed better than morphological criteria in mPCa patient with PSA progression.
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to compare response evaluation criteria in solid tumours 1.1 (RECIST 1.1), positron emission tomography response criteria in solid tumours (PERCIST), European organisation for research and treatment of cancer (EORTC), and MD Anderson (MDA) criteria for response assessment by Gallium 68-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography-computed tomography (Ga68-PSMA PET-CT) in metastatic adenocarcinoma prostate cancer (mPCa) patients with biochemical progression. METHODS: Eighty-eight mPCa patients with pre and post treatment Ga68-PSMA PET-CT were included. A ≥ 25% increase and ≥ 2 ng/ml above the nadir if prostate specific antigen (PSA) drop or ≥ 2 ng/ml above the baseline if PSA does not drop was considered as biochemical progression. RECIST 1.1 and MDA criteria for morphology and PERCIST and EORTC criteria for molecular response were investigated. Percentages of progressive disease (PD), partial response (PR), and stable disease (SD) were calculated. Chi-square test was used for statistical significance. RESULTS: Proportion of PD, SD, and PR by RECIST 1.1 and MDA criteria were 44 (50.57%), 39 (44.83%), 4 (4.6%), and 33 (39.76%), 48 (57.83%), 2 (2.41%) respectively. Proportion of PD, SD, and PR by PERCIST and EORTC criteria were 71 (80.68%), 11 (12.50%), 6 (6.82%), and 74 (84.09%), 8 (9.09%), 6 (6.82%) respectively. Chi-square test showed statistically significant (P < 0.05) higher proportion of progression detected by both molecular criteria as compare to both morphological criteria. CONCLUSION: We concluded that for Ga68-PSMA PET-CT response evaluation, molecular criteria performed better than morphological criteria in mPCa patient with PSA progression.
Authors: Anna Katharina Seitz; Isabel Rauscher; Bernhard Haller; Markus Krönke; Sophia Luther; Matthias M Heck; Thomas Horn; Jürgen E Gschwend; Markus Schwaiger; Matthias Eiber; Tobias Maurer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: H Young; R Baum; U Cremerius; K Herholz; O Hoekstra; A A Lammertsma; J Pruim; P Price Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Sarah M Schwarzenböck; Matthias Eiber; Günther Kundt; Margitta Retz; Monique Sakretz; Jens Kurth; Uwe Treiber; Roman Nawroth; Ernst J Rummeny; Jürgen E Gschwend; Markus Schwaiger; Mark Thalgott; Bernd J Krause Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-06-17 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Bernard H E Jansen; Matthijs C F Cysouw; André N Vis; Reindert J A van Moorselaar; Jens Voortman; Yves J L Bodar; Patrick R Schober; N Harry Hendrikse; Otto S Hoekstra; Ronald Boellaard; D E Oprea-Lager Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-01-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Kerstin Michalski; Claudius Klein; Tonio Brueggemann; Philipp T Meyer; Cordula Annette Jilg; Juri Ruf Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Lena M Mittlmeier; Matthias Brendel; Leonie Beyer; Nathalie L Albert; Andrei Todica; Mathias J Zacherl; Vera Wenter; Annika Herlemann; Alexander Kretschmer; Stephan T Ledderose; Nina-Sophie Schmidt-Hegemann; Wolfgang G Kunz; Jens Ricke; Peter Bartenstein; Harun Ilhan; Marcus Unterrainer Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Friederike Völter; Lena Mittlmeier; Astrid Gosewisch; Julia Brosch-Lenz; Franz Josef Gildehaus; Mathias Johannes Zacherl; Leonie Beyer; Christian G Stief; Adrien Holzgreve; Johannes Rübenthaler; Clemens C Cyran; Guido Böning; Peter Bartenstein; Andrei Todica; Harun Ilhan Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-03-03
Authors: Philipp E Hartrampf; Marieke Heinrich; Anna Katharina Seitz; Joachim Brumberg; Ioannis Sokolakis; Charis Kalogirou; Andreas Schirbel; Hubert Kübler; Andreas K Buck; Constantin Lapa; Markus Krebs Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 4.241