Rohan Nandurkar1, Pimmeke van Leeuwen2,3, Phillip Stricker2,4, Henry Woo5, Rajdeep Kooner4, Carlo Yuen4, Gordon O'Neill4, David Ende4, Thomas Cusick2, Bao Ho6, Adam Hickey6, Louise Emmett2,6. 1. 1 Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales Sydney , Sydney, NSW , Australia. 2. 2 Clinical Prostate Cancer Research, The Garvan Institute of Medical Research , Sydney, NSW , Australia. 3. 3 Department of Urology, Erasmus Medical Center , Rotterdam , Netherlands. 4. 4 Department of Urology, St Vincent's Clinic , Sydney, NSW , Australia. 5. 5 Department of Urology, Sydney Adventist Hospital , Sydney, NSW , Australia. 6. 6 Department of Nuclear Medicine, St Vincent's Hospital Sydney , Sydney, NSW , Australia.
Abstract
METHODS: : We analysed results of 142 males with staging PSMA prior to radical prostatectomy (RP). Data collected included PSMA PET/CT, bone scan (30/142), mpMRI (112/142), and pathological T stage (pT) stage, Gleason score, surgical margins and lymph node status at RP. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was documented at staging scan, and following surgery (median 45 days (interquartile range 38-59). A PSA of < 0.03 ng ml-1 was classified as surgical response (SR). Logistic regression was performed for association of pre-operative clinical variables and SR. RESULTS: : 97.9% (139/142) of males had positive intraprostatic findings on PSMA. 14.1 % (20/142) of males had further sites of extra prostatic disease identified on PSMA PET. In males with disease confined to the prostate, 82.9 % (92/111) achieved an SR, compared to 28.6 % (4/14) in males with extraprostatic disease identified (lymph node positive and distant metastatic disease) (p < 0.001). On binary logistic regression PSMA had a superior predictive value for SR than Gleason score, PSA (at time of imaging) or pT stage. MRI was less sensitive and more specific for SVI, and less sensitive for nodal involvement. CONCLUSION: : Extraprostatic disease identified on staging pre-operative PSMA PET is independently predictive of a poor surgical response to RP, and may indicate a need for a multimodality approach to treatment. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:: This is one of the first studies to correlate the PSMA PET's staging capacity to prostate cancer patient's outcomes to radical prostatectomy and indicates it's potential in predicting which patients will benefit from radical prostatectomy.
METHODS: : We analysed results of 142 males with staging PSMA prior to radical prostatectomy (RP). Data collected included PSMA PET/CT, bone scan (30/142), mpMRI (112/142), and pathological T stage (pT) stage, Gleason score, surgical margins and lymph node status at RP. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was documented at staging scan, and following surgery (median 45 days (interquartile range 38-59). A PSA of < 0.03 ng ml-1 was classified as surgical response (SR). Logistic regression was performed for association of pre-operative clinical variables and SR. RESULTS: : 97.9% (139/142) of males had positive intraprostatic findings on PSMA. 14.1 % (20/142) of males had further sites of extra prostatic disease identified on PSMA PET. In males with disease confined to the prostate, 82.9 % (92/111) achieved an SR, compared to 28.6 % (4/14) in males with extraprostatic disease identified (lymph node positive and distant metastatic disease) (p < 0.001). On binary logistic regression PSMA had a superior predictive value for SR than Gleason score, PSA (at time of imaging) or pT stage. MRI was less sensitive and more specific for SVI, and less sensitive for nodal involvement. CONCLUSION: : Extraprostatic disease identified on staging pre-operative PSMA PET is independently predictive of a poor surgical response to RP, and may indicate a need for a multimodality approach to treatment. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:: This is one of the first studies to correlate the PSMA PET's staging capacity to prostate cancerpatient's outcomes to radical prostatectomy and indicates it's potential in predicting which patients will benefit from radical prostatectomy.
Authors: Shomik Sengupta; Carl M Christensen; Horst Zincke; Jeffrey M Slezak; Bradley C Leibovich; Eric J Bergstralh; Robert P Myers; Michael L Blute Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Michael A Liss; Achim Lusch; Blanca Morales; Nima Beheshti; Douglas Skarecky; Navneet Narula; Kathryn Osann; Thomas E Ahlering Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-10-22 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: A M Hövels; R A M Heesakkers; E M Adang; G J Jager; S Strum; Y L Hoogeveen; J L Severens; J O Barentsz Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2008-02-04 Impact factor: 2.350
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: Riccardo Laudicella; Stephan Skawran; Daniela A Ferraro; Urs J Mühlematter; Alexander Maurer; Hannes Grünig; Hendrik J Rüschoff; Niels Rupp; Olivio Donati; Daniel Eberli; Irene A Burger Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2022-04-15