AIM: Combined Ga-PSMA-617 PET imaging and Lu-PSMA-617 therapy is a precise targeted theranostic approach for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The purpose of this study was to determine whether pretherapeutic standard uptake value (SUV) in Ga-PSMA-617 PET could indicate the effective dose in the main organs and absorbed dose in tumor lesions. METHODS: After institutional review board approval and informed consent, 9 patients with mCRPC were recruited and underwent Ga-PSMA-617 PET/CT scans. Five patients received Lu-PSMA-617 (1.30-1.42 GBq, 35-38.4 mCi) and then underwent serial whole-body planar imaging and SPECT/CT imaging of both thoracic and abdominal regions at 0.5-, 2-, 24-, 48-, and 72-hour time points. The other 4 patients received Lu-EB-PSMA-617 (0.80-1.1 GBq, 21.5-30 mCi) and then underwent the same imaging procedures at 2-, 24-, 72-, 120-, and 168-hour time points. The effective dose in the main organs and the absorbed dose in tumor lesions were calculated. Detailed correlations between the pretherapeutic SUV in Ga-PSMA-617 PET and effective dose in the main organs as well as absorbed dose in the tumor lesions were analyzed. RESULTS: SUV of Ga-PSMA-617 PET was moderately correlated with effective dose in main organs (r = 0.610 for Lu-PSMA-617, r = 0.743 for Lu-EB-PSMA-617, both P < 0.001). SUV of tumor lesions in Ga-PSMA-617 PET had high correlation with those in Lu-PSMA-617 (r = 0.915, P < 0.001) and moderate correlation with those in Lu-EB-PSMA-617 (r = 0.611, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Pretherapeutic Ga-PSMA-617 PET may indicate the dosimetry of Lu-PSMA-617 and Lu-EB-PSMA-617. Both the effective dose in main organs and absorbed dose in tumor lesions correlate with SUV of Ga-PSMA-617 PET. This relationship may help select appropriate candidates for peptide receptor radionuclide therapy. Further investigations of larger cohorts are needed to confirm these initial findings.
AIM: Combined Ga-PSMA-617 PET imaging and Lu-PSMA-617 therapy is a precise targeted theranostic approach for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The purpose of this study was to determine whether pretherapeutic standard uptake value (SUV) in Ga-PSMA-617 PET could indicate the effective dose in the main organs and absorbed dose in tumor lesions. METHODS: After institutional review board approval and informed consent, 9 patients with mCRPC were recruited and underwent Ga-PSMA-617 PET/CT scans. Five patients received Lu-PSMA-617 (1.30-1.42 GBq, 35-38.4 mCi) and then underwent serial whole-body planar imaging and SPECT/CT imaging of both thoracic and abdominal regions at 0.5-, 2-, 24-, 48-, and 72-hour time points. The other 4 patients received Lu-EB-PSMA-617 (0.80-1.1 GBq, 21.5-30 mCi) and then underwent the same imaging procedures at 2-, 24-, 72-, 120-, and 168-hour time points. The effective dose in the main organs and the absorbed dose in tumor lesions were calculated. Detailed correlations between the pretherapeutic SUV in Ga-PSMA-617 PET and effective dose in the main organs as well as absorbed dose in the tumor lesions were analyzed. RESULTS: SUV of Ga-PSMA-617 PET was moderately correlated with effective dose in main organs (r = 0.610 for Lu-PSMA-617, r = 0.743 for Lu-EB-PSMA-617, both P < 0.001). SUV of tumor lesions in Ga-PSMA-617 PET had high correlation with those in Lu-PSMA-617 (r = 0.915, P < 0.001) and moderate correlation with those in Lu-EB-PSMA-617 (r = 0.611, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Pretherapeutic Ga-PSMA-617 PET may indicate the dosimetry of Lu-PSMA-617 and Lu-EB-PSMA-617. Both the effective dose in main organs and absorbed dose in tumor lesions correlate with SUV of Ga-PSMA-617 PET. This relationship may help select appropriate candidates for peptide receptor radionuclide therapy. Further investigations of larger cohorts are needed to confirm these initial findings.
Authors: Andreas Delker; Wolfgang Peter Fendler; Clemens Kratochwil; Anika Brunegraf; Astrid Gosewisch; Franz Josef Gildehaus; Stefan Tritschler; Christian Georg Stief; Klaus Kopka; Uwe Haberkorn; Peter Bartenstein; Guido Böning Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-08-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Samer Ezziddin; Jonas Lohmar; Charlotte J Yong-Hing; Amir Sabet; Hojjat Ahmadzadehfar; Guido Kukuk; Hans-Jürgen Biersack; Stefan Guhlke; Karl Reichmann Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Clemens Kratochwil; Frederik L Giesel; Karin Leotta; Matthias Eder; Torsten Hoppe-Tich; Hagop Youssoufian; Klaus Kopka; John W Babich; Uwe Haberkorn Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: M Cremonesi; F Botta; A Di Dia; M Ferrari; L Bodei; C De Cicco; A Rossi; M Bartolomei; R Mei; S Severi; M Salvatori; G Pedroli; G Paganelli Journal: Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 2.346
Authors: L Maffioli; L Florimonte; D C Costa; J Correia Castanheira; C Grana; M Luster; L Bodei; M Chinol Journal: Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-07-29 Impact factor: 2.346
Authors: Anne Roivainen; Esa Kähkönen; Pauliina Luoto; Sandra Borkowski; Birte Hofmann; Ivan Jambor; Kaisa Lehtiö; Tuija Rantala; Antje Rottmann; Henri Sipilä; Rick Sparks; Sami Suilamo; Tuula Tolvanen; Ray Valencia; Heikki Minn Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-04-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Kyle Current; Catherine Meyer; Clara E Magyar; Christine E Mona; Joel Almajano; Roger Slavik; Andreea D Stuparu; Chloe Cheng; David W Dawson; Caius G Radu; Johannes Czernin; Katharina Lueckerath Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-01-13 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Gary L Griffiths; Crystal Vasquez; Freddy Escorcia; Jeff Clanton; Liza Lindenberg; Esther Mena; Peter L Choyke Journal: Adv Drug Deliv Rev Date: 2021-12-20 Impact factor: 15.470
Authors: John Violet; Shahneen Sandhu; Amir Iravani; Justin Ferdinandus; Sue-Ping Thang; Grace Kong; Aravind Ravi Kumar; Tim Akhurst; David A Pattison; Alexis Beaulieu; Jennifer Mooi; Ben Tran; Christina Guo; Victor Kalff; Declan G Murphy; Price Jackson; Peter Eu; Mark Scalzo; Scott Williams; Rodney J Hicks; Michael S Hofman Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Andrei Gafita; Hui Wang; Andrew Robertson; Wesley R Armstrong; Raphael Zaum; Manuel Weber; Farid Yagubbayli; Clemens Kratochwil; Tristan R Grogan; Kathleen Nguyen; Fernando Navarro; Rouzbeh Esfandiari; Isabel Rauscher; Bjoern Menze; David Elashoff; Ebrahim S Delpassand; Ken Herrmann; Johannes Czernin; Michael S Hofman; Jeremie Calais; Wolfgang P Fendler; Matthias Eiber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 11.082