Alison R Roth1, Stephanie A Harmon2, Timothy G Perk2, Jens Eickhoff3, Peter L Choyke4, Karen A Kurdziel4, William L Dahut5, Andrea B Apolo5, Michael J Morris6, Scott B Perlman7, Glenn Liu8, Robert Jeraj8. 1. Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. Electronic address: aroth5@wisc.edu. 2. Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. 4. Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD. 5. Genitourinary Malignancies Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD. 6. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 7. University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, WI. 8. Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, WI.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whole-body assessments of 18F-NaF positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) provide promising quantitative imaging biomarkers of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This study investigated whether the distribution of metastases across anatomic regions is prognostic of progression-free survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-four mCRPC patients with osseous metastases received baseline NaF PET/CT. Patients received chemotherapy (n = 16) or androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (n = 38). Semiautomated analysis using Quantitative Total Bone Imaging software extracted imaging metrics for the whole, axial, and appendicular skeleton as well as 11 skeletal regions. Five PET metrics were extracted for each region: number of lesions (NL), standardized maximum uptake value (SUVmax), average uptake (SUVmean), sum of uptake (SUVtotal), and diseased fraction of the skeleton (volume fraction). Progression included that discovered by clinical, biochemical, or radiographic means. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were performed between imaging metrics and progression-free survival, and were assessed according to their hazard ratios (HR) and concordance (C)-indices. RESULTS: The strongest univariate models of progression-free survival were pelvic NL and SUVmax with HR = 1.80 (NL: false discovery rate adjusted P = .001, SUVmax: adjusted P = .001). Three other region-specific metrics (axial NL: HR = 1.59, adjusted P = .02, axial SUVmax: HR = 1.61, adjusted P = .02, and skull SUVmax: HR = 1.58, adjusted P = .04) were found to be stronger prognosticators relative to their whole-body counterparts. Multivariate model including region-specific metrics (C-index = 0.727) outperformed that of whole-body metrics (C-index = 0.705). The best performance was obtained when region-specific and whole-body metrics were included (C-index = 0.742). CONCLUSION: Quantitative characterization of metastatic spread by anatomic location on NaF PET/CT enhances potential prognostication. Further study is warranted to optimize the prognostic and predictive value of NaF PET/CT in mCRPC patients.
BACKGROUND: Whole-body assessments of 18F-NaF positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) provide promising quantitative imaging biomarkers of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This study investigated whether the distribution of metastases across anatomic regions is prognostic of progression-free survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-four mCRPC patients with osseous metastases received baseline NaF PET/CT. Patients received chemotherapy (n = 16) or androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (n = 38). Semiautomated analysis using Quantitative Total Bone Imaging software extracted imaging metrics for the whole, axial, and appendicular skeleton as well as 11 skeletal regions. Five PET metrics were extracted for each region: number of lesions (NL), standardized maximum uptake value (SUVmax), average uptake (SUVmean), sum of uptake (SUVtotal), and diseased fraction of the skeleton (volume fraction). Progression included that discovered by clinical, biochemical, or radiographic means. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were performed between imaging metrics and progression-free survival, and were assessed according to their hazard ratios (HR) and concordance (C)-indices. RESULTS: The strongest univariate models of progression-free survival were pelvic NL and SUVmax with HR = 1.80 (NL: false discovery rate adjusted P = .001, SUVmax: adjusted P = .001). Three other region-specific metrics (axial NL: HR = 1.59, adjusted P = .02, axial SUVmax: HR = 1.61, adjusted P = .02, and skull SUVmax: HR = 1.58, adjusted P = .04) were found to be stronger prognosticators relative to their whole-body counterparts. Multivariate model including region-specific metrics (C-index = 0.727) outperformed that of whole-body metrics (C-index = 0.705). The best performance was obtained when region-specific and whole-body metrics were included (C-index = 0.742). CONCLUSION: Quantitative characterization of metastatic spread by anatomic location on NaF PET/CT enhances potential prognostication. Further study is warranted to optimize the prognostic and predictive value of NaF PET/CT in mCRPC patients.
Authors: Elba C Etchebehere; John C Araujo; Patricia S Fox; Nancy M Swanston; Homer A Macapinlac; Eric M Rohren Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: G J Bubley; M Carducci; W Dahut; N Dawson; D Daliani; M Eisenberger; W D Figg; B Freidlin; S Halabi; G Hudes; M Hussain; R Kaplan; C Myers; W Oh; D P Petrylak; E Reed; B Roth; O Sartor; H Scher; J Simons; V Sinibaldi; E J Small; M R Smith; D L Trump; G Wilding Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E D Crawford; M A Eisenberger; D G McLeod; J T Spaulding; R Benson; F A Dorr; B A Blumenstein; M A Davis; P J Goodman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1989-08-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Christian Uprimny; Anna Svirydenka; Josef Fritz; Alexander Stephan Kroiss; Bernhard Nilica; Clemens Decristoforo; Roland Haubner; Elisabeth von Guggenberg; Sabine Buxbaum; Wolfgang Horninger; Irene Johanna Virgolini Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: M A Eisenberger; B A Blumenstein; E D Crawford; G Miller; D G McLeod; P J Loehrer; G Wilding; K Sears; D J Culkin; I M Thompson; A J Bueschen; B A Lowe Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1998-10-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stephanie A Harmon; Ethan Bergvall; Esther Mena; Joanna H Shih; Stephen Adler; Yolanda McKinney; Sherif Mehralivand; Deborah E Citrin; Anna Couvillon; Ravi A Madan; James L Gulley; Ronnie C Mease; Paula M Jacobs; Martin G Pomper; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; M Liza Lindenberg Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-03-30 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: M Imbriaco; S M Larson; H W Yeung; O R Mawlawi; Y Erdi; E S Venkatraman; H I Scher Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 12.531