Nina-Sophie Schmidt-Hegemann1, Chukwuka Eze1, Minglun Li1, Paul Rogowski1, Christian Schaefer1, Christian Stief2, Alexander Buchner2, Constantinos Zamboglou3, Wolfgang Peter Fendler4, Ute Ganswindt5, Clemens Cyran6, Peter Bartenstein7, Claus Belka1,8, Harun Ilhan9. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany. 2. Department of Urology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. 5. Department of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, Innsbruck Medical University, Innsbruck, Austria. 6. Department of Radiology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany. 7. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany; and. 8. German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Munich, Germany. 9. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany; and harun.ilhan@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Abstract
68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen PET/CT (68Ga-PSMA PET/CT) offers unprecedented accuracy for staging of primary, persistent, or recurrent prostate cancer. Thus, we hypothesized that 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT before radiotherapy significantly affects the radiotherapeutic approach in comparison to the current standard, a CT-based approach. Methods: Between February 2014 and December 2017, 172 patients underwent 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT before radiotherapy and were included in this retrospective analysis. Twenty-two (13%) patients were referred for primary definitive radiotherapy, 51% (88/172) for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) persistence, and 36% (62/172) for PSA recurrence after radical prostatectomy. An experienced radiation oncologist, masked to the CT and PET/CT results, decided on the radiation treatment management of all patients on the basis of the clinical and pathologic variables. The potential increase in diagnostic accuracy, and the subsequent change in radiotherapeutic approach, were documented separately for PET/CT versus CT. Results: The overall detection rate was 70% (120/172) for 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT. Patients with a pre-PET/CT PSA level of more than 0.5 ng/mL (98/111; 88%) had PET-positive results significantly more often. Overall, PSMA PET/CT revealed 171 lesions, PET alone 156, and CT alone 85. For all patients, a continuous diagnostic increase in positive findings was observed for primary tumor/local recurrence (CT, 18%, vs. PET/CT, 37%), pelvic lymph nodes (CT, 21%, vs. PET/CT, 44%), and distant metastases (CT, 7%, vs. PET/CT, 19%) when comparing CT with PET/CT. Compared with CT, the combination of PET/CT information resulted in a change in treatment in 107 of 172 (62%) patients, that is, 8 of 22 (36%) patients before any treatment, 31 of 62 (50%) with PSA recurrence, and 68 of 88 (77%) with PSA persistence. Comparing the different radiotherapy indications with one another, there was a higher rate of change in management for postoperative patients than for patients before any treatment. Conclusion: Compared with conventional CT, 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT had a remarkable impact on radiotherapeutic approach, especially in postoperative patients. Thus, considering the growing amount of data on the impact of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT on postoperative patients, 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT has recently been endorsed by a few cancer guidelines as an imaging modality in patients with PSA persistence or recurrence (e.g., the German S3 guideline and the European Association of Urology guideline).
68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen PET/CT (68Ga-PSMA PET/CT) offers unprecedented accuracy for staging of primary, persistent, or recurrent prostate cancer. Thus, we hypothesized that 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT before radiotherapy significantly affects the radiotherapeutic approach in comparison to the current standard, a CT-based approach. Methods: Between February 2014 and December 2017, 172 patients underwent 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT before radiotherapy and were included in this retrospective analysis. Twenty-two (13%) patients were referred for primary definitive radiotherapy, 51% (88/172) for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) persistence, and 36% (62/172) for PSA recurrence after radical prostatectomy. An experienced radiation oncologist, masked to the CT and PET/CT results, decided on the radiation treatment management of all patients on the basis of the clinical and pathologic variables. The potential increase in diagnostic accuracy, and the subsequent change in radiotherapeutic approach, were documented separately for PET/CT versus CT. Results: The overall detection rate was 70% (120/172) for 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT. Patients with a pre-PET/CT PSA level of more than 0.5 ng/mL (98/111; 88%) had PET-positive results significantly more often. Overall, PSMA PET/CT revealed 171 lesions, PET alone 156, and CT alone 85. For all patients, a continuous diagnostic increase in positive findings was observed for primary tumor/local recurrence (CT, 18%, vs. PET/CT, 37%), pelvic lymph nodes (CT, 21%, vs. PET/CT, 44%), and distant metastases (CT, 7%, vs. PET/CT, 19%) when comparing CT with PET/CT. Compared with CT, the combination of PET/CT information resulted in a change in treatment in 107 of 172 (62%) patients, that is, 8 of 22 (36%) patients before any treatment, 31 of 62 (50%) with PSA recurrence, and 68 of 88 (77%) with PSA persistence. Comparing the different radiotherapy indications with one another, there was a higher rate of change in management for postoperative patients than for patients before any treatment. Conclusion: Compared with conventional CT, 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT had a remarkable impact on radiotherapeutic approach, especially in postoperative patients. Thus, considering the growing amount of data on the impact of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT on postoperative patients, 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT has recently been endorsed by a few cancer guidelines as an imaging modality in patients with PSA persistence or recurrence (e.g., the German S3 guideline and the European Association of Urology guideline).
Authors: Margaret E Daube-Witherspoon; Joel S Karp; Michael E Casey; Frank P DiFilippo; Horace Hines; Gerd Muehllehner; Vilim Simcic; Charles W Stearns; Lars-Eric Adam; Steve Kohlmyer; Vesna Sossi Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Thomas M Pisansky; Daniel Hunt; Leonard G Gomella; Mahul B Amin; Alexander G Balogh; Daniel M Chinn; Michael J Seider; Marie Duclos; Seth A Rosenthal; Glenn S Bauman; Elizabeth M Gore; Marvin Z Rotman; Himanshu R Lukka; William U Shipley; James J Dignam; Howard M Sandler Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-12-22 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Colleen A F Lawton; Jeff Michalski; Issam El-Naqa; Mark K Buyyounouski; W Robert Lee; Cynthia Menard; Elizabeth O'Meara; Seth A Rosenthal; Mark Ritter; Michael Seider Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-10-22 Impact factor: 7.038
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: Christina Laschinsky; Ken Herrmann; Wolfgang Fendler; Michael Nader; Harald Lahner; Boris Hadaschik; Patrick Sandach Journal: Radiologie (Heidelb) Date: 2022-10
Authors: Simon K B Spohn; Viktoria Birkenmaier; Juri Ruf; Michael Mix; August Sigle; Erik Haehl; Sonja Adebahr; Tanja Sprave; Eleni Gkika; Alexander Rühle; Nils H Nicolay; Simon Kirste; Anca L Grosu; Constantinos Zamboglou Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-06-07 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: M Unterrainer; C Eze; H Ilhan; S Marschner; O Roengvoraphoj; N S Schmidt-Hegemann; F Walter; W G Kunz; P Munck Af Rosenschöld; R Jeraj; N L Albert; A L Grosu; M Niyazi; P Bartenstein; C Belka Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Ann-Kathrin Oehus; Stephanie G C Kroeze; Nina-Sophie Schmidt-Hegemann; Marco M E Vogel; Simon Kirste; Jessica Becker; Irene A Burger; Thorsten Derlin; Peter Bartenstein; Matthias Eiber; Michael Mix; Christian la Fougère; Claus Belka; Stephanie E Combs; Anca-Ligia Grosu; Arndt-Christian Müller; Matthias Guckenberger; Hans Christiansen; Christoph Henkenberens Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-04-29 Impact factor: 4.430
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