Thomas W Barber1,2, Aviral Singh3,4, Harshad R Kulkarni3, Karin Niepsch3, Baki Billah5, Richard P Baum3. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia T.Barber@alfred.org.au. 2. Department of Medicine, Monash University, Alfred Hospital Campus, Melbourne, Australia. 3. Theranostics Center for Molecular Radiotherapy and Precision Oncology, Zentralklinik Bad Berka, Bad Berka, Germany. 4. GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands; and. 5. Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Alfred Hospital Campus, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
177Lu-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) radioligand therapy using PSMA-617 and PSMA-I&T ligands (177Lu-PRLT) is an emerging treatment in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This retrospective study evaluates clinical outcomes of 177Lu-PRLT in earlier and later phases of mCRPC grouped by previous taxane chemotherapy. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 167 patients with mCRPC who underwent 177Lu-PRLT between March 2013 and December 2016. Patients were classified as either taxane chemotherapy pretreated (T-pretreated) or naïve (T-naïve) depending on whether they had received taxane-based chemotherapy prior to 177Lu-PRLT. Clinical outcome for T-pretreated and T-naïve patients was assessed by overall survival (OS), radiographic progression-free survival, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed for both T-pretreated and T-naïve patients to determine predictors of outcome. Toxicity was categorized by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.03). Results: Of the 167 patients treated with 177Lu-PRLT, 83 were T-pretreated and 84 were T-naïve. At baseline, T-pretreated patients had overall poorer performance status, a higher prevalence of bone metastases, higher PSA levels, lower hemoglobin levels, higher alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels and had received more additional therapies compared with T-naïve patients. Median OS was 10.7 mo for T-pretreated patients and 27.1 mo for T-naïve patients. Median radiographic progression-free survival was 6.0 mo for T-pretreated patients and 8.8 mo for T-naïve patients. PSA response assessment was evaluable in 132 patients and seen in 25 of 62 (40%) T-pretreated patients and 40 of 70 (57%) T-naïve patients. Significant determinates of inferior OS in multivariable analysis for T-pretreated patients were poorer performance status, lower cumulative administered activity, and lower baseline hemoglobin. Higher baseline alkaline phosphatase was the only significant determinate of inferior OS in multivariable analysis for T-naïve patients. Overall 177Lu-PRLT was safe, with minimal adverse effects evident during follow-up in both T-pretreated and T-naïve patients. Conclusion: 177Lu-PRLT is a promising therapy in mCRPC, with encouraging outcomes and minimal associated toxicity seen in both our T-naïve and heavily pretreated patient cohorts.
177Lu-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) radioligand therapy using PSMA-617 and PSMA-I&T ligands (177Lu-PRLT) is an emerging treatment in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This retrospective study evaluates clinical outcomes of 177Lu-PRLT in earlier and later phases of mCRPC grouped by previous taxane chemotherapy. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 167 patients with mCRPC who underwent 177Lu-PRLT between March 2013 and December 2016. Patients were classified as either taxane chemotherapy pretreated (T-pretreated) or naïve (T-naïve) depending on whether they had received taxane-based chemotherapy prior to 177Lu-PRLT. Clinical outcome for T-pretreated and T-naïve patients was assessed by overall survival (OS), radiographic progression-free survival, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed for both T-pretreated and T-naïve patients to determine predictors of outcome. Toxicity was categorized by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.03). Results: Of the 167 patients treated with 177Lu-PRLT, 83 were T-pretreated and 84 were T-naïve. At baseline, T-pretreated patients had overall poorer performance status, a higher prevalence of bone metastases, higher PSA levels, lower hemoglobin levels, higher alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels and had received more additional therapies compared with T-naïve patients. Median OS was 10.7 mo for T-pretreated patients and 27.1 mo for T-naïve patients. Median radiographic progression-free survival was 6.0 mo for T-pretreated patients and 8.8 mo for T-naïve patients. PSA response assessment was evaluable in 132 patients and seen in 25 of 62 (40%) T-pretreated patients and 40 of 70 (57%) T-naïve patients. Significant determinates of inferior OS in multivariable analysis for T-pretreated patients were poorer performance status, lower cumulative administered activity, and lower baseline hemoglobin. Higher baseline alkaline phosphatase was the only significant determinate of inferior OS in multivariable analysis for T-naïve patients. Overall 177Lu-PRLT was safe, with minimal adverse effects evident during follow-up in both T-pretreated and T-naïve patients. Conclusion:177Lu-PRLT is a promising therapy in mCRPC, with encouraging outcomes and minimal associated toxicity seen in both our T-naïve and heavily pretreated patient cohorts.
Authors: Mohammad S Sadaghiani; Sara Sheikhbahaei; Rudolf A Werner; Kenneth J Pienta; Martin G Pomper; Lilja B Solnes; Michael A Gorin; Nae-Yuh Wang; Steven P Rowe Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2021-04-08 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Hojjat Ahmadzadehfar; Ralf Matern; Richard P Baum; Robert Seifert; Katharina Kessel; Martin Bögemann; Clemens Kratochwil; Hendrik Rathke; Harun Ilhan; Hanna Svirydenka; Mike Sathekge; Levent Kabasakal; Anna Yordanova; Francisco Osvaldo Garcia-Perez; Kalevi Kairemo; Masha Maharaj; Diana Paez; Irene Virgolini; Kambiz Rahbar Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Eline A M Ruigrok; Nicole van Vliet; Simone U Dalm; Erik de Blois; Dik C van Gent; Joost Haeck; Corrina de Ridder; Debra Stuurman; Mark W Konijnenberg; Wytske M van Weerden; Marion de Jong; Julie Nonnekens Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-10-23 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Daniel Groener; Cam Tu Nguyen; Justus Baumgarten; Benjamin Bockisch; Karen Davis; Christian Happel; Nicolai Mader; Christina Nguyen Ngoc; Jennifer Wichert; Severine Banek; Philipp Mandel; Felix K H Chun; Nikolaos Tselis; Frank Grünwald; Amir Sabet Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2021-07-03 Impact factor: 3.138
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