Cordula A Jilg1, Vanessa Drendel2, H Christian Rischke3,4, Teresa I Beck4, Kathrin Reichel5, Malte Krönig5, Ulrich Wetterauer5, Wolfgang Schultze-Seemann5, Philipp T Meyer4,6, Werner Vach7,8. 1. Department of Urology, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany cordula.jilg@uniklinik-freiburg.de. 2. Institute for Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Germany. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Germany. 5. Department of Urology, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 6. German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Germany. 7. Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland; and. 8. Institute for Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine & Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Abstract
Accurate detection of prostate cancer lymph node metastases (LNM) through PET/CT before lymphadenectomy is crucial for successful therapy. PET/CT with choline derivatives used to be the standard tool for imaging metastases, whereas 68Ga-PSMA (prostate-specific membrane antigen) PET/CT was introduced recently. Both PET techniques were investigated with respect to what extent the detection rate of LNM depends on the size of tumor deposits (TDs) within LNM. Methods: Documenting the switch from the use of 18F-choline to 68Ga-PSMA in 2014, we used 2 patient cohorts undergoing a template lymphadenectomy because of a PET/CT indicating LNM. Forty-four and 40 patients underwent PET/CT with 18F-choline or 68Ga-PSMA ligand, respectively. In total, 226 LNM (125 18F-choline, 101 68Ga-PSMA) originated from 73 salvage lymphadenectomies at biochemical recurrence and from 11 primary lymphadenectomies at radical prostatectomy. LNM eligible for direct correlation of PET/CT to histopathology were identified from lymphadenectomies conducted in small anatomic subregions, with 1 LNM (condition 1) or 1-2 LNM (condition 2). Longitudinal and short diameters of TD within LNM were determined by histopathology, allowing linking of the size of TD in LNM to the detection threshold of PET/CT. Diameters associated with a detection rate of 50% and 90% (d50%, d90%) were calculated on the basis of logistic growth curve models fitted. Results: Gleason score, number of removed LNs, and subregions for lymphadenectomy per patient did not differ significantly between the 18F-choline and 68Ga-PSMA groups. The median prostate-specific antigen level at imaging and number of LNM per patient were significantly higher in the 18F-choline group (3.4 ng/mL, n = 34) than in the 68Ga-PSMA group (2.2 ng/mL, n = 28; both P < 0.05). Longitudinal and short diameters of TD in LNM to reach d90% were 11.2 and 7.4 mm, respectively, for 18F-choline PET/CT and 6.3 and 4.9 mm, respectively, for 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT. Corresponding diameters to reach d50% were 5.5 and 3.3 mm, respectively, for 18F-choline PET/CT and 3.7 and 2.3 mm, respectively, for 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT. Detection rates were significantly higher under 68Ga-PSMA (P = 0.005 and 0.04 for longitudinal and short diameter). Conclusion: 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT is superior to 18F-choline PET/CT in the detection of LNM. Whether those results will lead to an improved patient outcome after 68Ga-PSMA PET-guided therapy needs to be investigated by further studies.
Accurate detection of prostate cancer lymph node metastases (LNM) through PET/CT before lymphadenectomy is crucial for successful therapy. PET/CT with choline derivatives used to be the standard tool for imaging metastases, whereas 68Ga-PSMA (prostate-specific membrane antigen) PET/CT was introduced recently. Both PET techniques were investigated with respect to what extent the detection rate of LNM depends on the size of tumor deposits (TDs) within LNM. Methods: Documenting the switch from the use of 18F-choline to 68Ga-PSMA in 2014, we used 2 patient cohorts undergoing a template lymphadenectomy because of a PET/CT indicating LNM. Forty-four and 40 patients underwent PET/CT with 18F-choline or 68Ga-PSMA ligand, respectively. In total, 226 LNM (125 18F-choline, 101 68Ga-PSMA) originated from 73 salvage lymphadenectomies at biochemical recurrence and from 11 primary lymphadenectomies at radical prostatectomy. LNM eligible for direct correlation of PET/CT to histopathology were identified from lymphadenectomies conducted in small anatomic subregions, with 1 LNM (condition 1) or 1-2 LNM (condition 2). Longitudinal and short diameters of TD within LNM were determined by histopathology, allowing linking of the size of TD in LNM to the detection threshold of PET/CT. Diameters associated with a detection rate of 50% and 90% (d50%, d90%) were calculated on the basis of logistic growth curve models fitted. Results: Gleason score, number of removed LNs, and subregions for lymphadenectomy per patient did not differ significantly between the 18F-choline and 68Ga-PSMA groups. The median prostate-specific antigen level at imaging and number of LNM per patient were significantly higher in the 18F-choline group (3.4 ng/mL, n = 34) than in the 68Ga-PSMA group (2.2 ng/mL, n = 28; both P < 0.05). Longitudinal and short diameters of TD in LNM to reach d90% were 11.2 and 7.4 mm, respectively, for 18F-choline PET/CT and 6.3 and 4.9 mm, respectively, for 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT. Corresponding diameters to reach d50% were 5.5 and 3.3 mm, respectively, for 18F-choline PET/CT and 3.7 and 2.3 mm, respectively, for 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT. Detection rates were significantly higher under 68Ga-PSMA (P = 0.005 and 0.04 for longitudinal and short diameter). Conclusion: 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT is superior to 18F-choline PET/CT in the detection of LNM. Whether those results will lead to an improved patient outcome after 68Ga-PSMA PET-guided therapy needs to be investigated by further studies.
Authors: Maria Picchio; Alberto Briganti; Stefano Fanti; Axel Heidenreich; Bernd J Krause; Cristina Messa; Francesco Montorsi; Sven N Reske; George N Thalmann Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-09-15 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Cordula A Jilg; Wolfgang Schultze-Seemann; Vanessa Drendel; Werner Vach; Gesche Wieser; Tobias Krauss; Anett Jandausch; Stefanie Hölz; Karl Henne; Sven N Reske; Anca-L Grosu; Wolfgang A Weber; H Christian Rischke Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-02-08 Impact factor: 7.450
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: 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; 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: Sarah Piron; Jeroen Verhoeven; Benedicte Descamps; Ken Kersemans; Kathia De Man; Nick Van Laeken; Leen Pieters; Anne Vral; Christian Vanhove; Filip De Vos Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-12-03 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Stefan A Koerber; Johannes Boesch; Clemens Kratochwil; Ingmar Schlampp; Jonas Ristau; Erik Winter; Stefanie Zschaebitz; Luisa Hofer; Klaus Herfarth; Klaus Kopka; Tim Holland-Letz; Dirk Jaeger; Markus Hohenfellner; Uwe Haberkorn; Juergen Debus; Frederik L Giesel Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-03-25 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Melline G M Schilham; Patrik Zamecnik; Bastiaan M Privé; Bas Israël; Mark Rijpkema; Tom Scheenen; Jelle O Barentsz; James Nagarajah; Martin Gotthardt Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-01-30 Impact factor: 10.057