Jie Gao1, Chengwei Zhang1, Qing Zhang1, Yao Fu2, Xiaozhi Zhao1, Mengxia Chen1, Bing Zhang3, Danyan Li3, Jiong Shi2, Feng Wang4, Hongqian Guo5. 1. Department of Urology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Institute of Urology Nanjing University, No. 321 Zhongshan Road, Nanjing, 210008, Jiangsu Province, China. 2. Department of Pathology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China. 3. Department of Radiology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China. fengwangcn@hotmail.com. 5. Department of Urology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Institute of Urology Nanjing University, No. 321 Zhongshan Road, Nanjing, 210008, Jiangsu Province, China. dr.ghq@nju.edu.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the diagnostic performance of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT for identification of pathological cribriform morphology in prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: The study retrospectively enrolled 49 PCa patients who had undergone preoperative multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT, and who had Gleason pattern (GP) 4 and absence of GP 5 on radical prostatectomy specimens. Lesions with GP 4 were outlined and stratified according to their cribriform status. Volumes of interest were drawn on matched mpMRI and PET images, and parameters including average apparent diffusion coefficient (ADCmean), tenth percentile ADC (ADC10%) and maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) were derived. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for continuous variables and the chi-squared test for categorical variables. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to compare imaging parameters in identifying cribriform morphology. The associations between cribriform-positive PCa and imaging variables were evaluated in a univariate analysis using a logistic regression model. RESULTS: A total of 62 lesions were identified in 49 patients with GP 4. Of these lesions, 37 (59.7%) in 34 patients (69.4%) showed cribriform morphology. ADCmean and ADC10% were similar between cribriform-positive and non-cribriform groups (P > 0.05), while SUVmax was significantly different (median SUVmax 18.3 vs. 9.4 per patient, P = 0.003, 18.2 vs. 7.2 per lesion, P < 0.001), yielding sensitivities and specificities of 76% and 86% in a per-patient analysis, and 77% and 88% in a per-lesion analysis, respectively. Further, PSMA was significantly overexpressed in cribriform-positive PCa (P = 0.003). SUVmax was a significant predictor of cribriform morphology in PCa (odds ratio 8.61, 95% confidence interval 4.96-25.27, per patient; odds ratio 11.93, 95% confidence interval 6.49-33.74, per lesion; both P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT effectively identifies the aggressive cribriform morphology in PCa.
PURPOSE: To explore the diagnostic performance of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT for identification of pathological cribriform morphology in prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: The study retrospectively enrolled 49 PCa patients who had undergone preoperative multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT, and who had Gleason pattern (GP) 4 and absence of GP 5 on radical prostatectomy specimens. Lesions with GP 4 were outlined and stratified according to their cribriform status. Volumes of interest were drawn on matched mpMRI and PET images, and parameters including average apparent diffusion coefficient (ADCmean), tenth percentile ADC (ADC10%) and maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) were derived. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for continuous variables and the chi-squared test for categorical variables. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to compare imaging parameters in identifying cribriform morphology. The associations between cribriform-positive PCa and imaging variables were evaluated in a univariate analysis using a logistic regression model. RESULTS: A total of 62 lesions were identified in 49 patients with GP 4. Of these lesions, 37 (59.7%) in 34 patients (69.4%) showed cribriform morphology. ADCmean and ADC10% were similar between cribriform-positive and non-cribriform groups (P > 0.05), while SUVmax was significantly different (median SUVmax 18.3 vs. 9.4 per patient, P = 0.003, 18.2 vs. 7.2 per lesion, P < 0.001), yielding sensitivities and specificities of 76% and 86% in a per-patient analysis, and 77% and 88% in a per-lesion analysis, respectively. Further, PSMA was significantly overexpressed in cribriform-positive PCa (P = 0.003). SUVmax was a significant predictor of cribriform morphology in PCa (odds ratio 8.61, 95% confidence interval 4.96-25.27, per patient; odds ratio 11.93, 95% confidence interval 6.49-33.74, per lesion; both P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT effectively identifies the aggressive cribriform morphology in PCa.
Entities:
Keywords:
68Ga-PSMA PET/CT; Cribriform morphology; Multiparametric MRI; Prostate cancer
Authors: Jesse D Le; Nelly Tan; Eugene Shkolyar; David Y Lu; Lorna Kwan; Leonard S Marks; Jiaoti Huang; Daniel J A Margolis; Steven S Raman; Robert E Reiter Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-09-23 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Oleksandr N Kryvenko; Nilesh S Gupta; Nilam Virani; Daniel Schultz; Juan Gomez; Ali Amin; Zhaoli Lane; Jonathan I Epstein Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Jeffrey C Weinreb; Jelle O Barentsz; Peter L Choyke; Francois Cornud; Masoom A Haider; Katarzyna J Macura; Daniel Margolis; Mitchell D Schnall; Faina Shtern; Clare M Tempany; Harriet C Thoeny; Sadna Verma Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jonathan I Epstein; Lars Egevad; Mahul B Amin; Brett Delahunt; John R Srigley; Peter A Humphrey Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Yahui Peng; Yulei Jiang; Tatjana Antic; Maryellen L Giger; Scott E Eggener; Aytekin Oto Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-02-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jeffrey S Ross; Christine E Sheehan; Hugh A G Fisher; Ronald P Kaufman; Prabhjot Kaur; Karen Gray; Iain Webb; Gary S Gray; Rebecca Mosher; Bhaskar V S Kallakury Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2003-12-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Thomas S C Ng; Xin Gao; Keyan Salari; Dimitar V Zlatev; Pedram Heidari; Sophia C Kamran Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-07-28 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Sui Wai Ling; Anouk C de Jong; Ivo G Schoots; Kazem Nasserinejad; Martijn B Busstra; Astrid A M van der Veldt; Tessa Brabander Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2021-09-28
Authors: Hong Yuen Wong; Quanhu Sheng; Amanda B Hesterberg; Sarah Croessmann; Brenda L Rios; Khem Giri; Jorgen Jackson; Adam X Miranda; Evan Watkins; Kerry R Schaffer; Meredith Donahue; Elizabeth Winkler; David F Penson; Joseph A Smith; S Duke Herrell; Amy N Luckenbaugh; Daniel A Barocas; Young J Kim; Diana Graves; Giovanna A Giannico; Jeffrey C Rathmell; Ben H Park; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Paula J Hurley Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2022-10-13 Impact factor: 17.694
Authors: Sungmin Woo; Soleen Ghafoor; Anton S Becker; Sangwon Han; Andreas G Wibmer; Hedvig Hricak; Irene A Burger; Heiko Schöder; Hebert Alberto Vargas Journal: Eur J Hybrid Imaging Date: 2020-09-09