Arveen A Kalapara1,2, Tatenda Nzenza3, Henry Y C Pan1, Zita Ballok4,5, Shakher Ramdave5, Richard O'Sullivan4,6, Andrew Ryan7, Martin Cherk8, Michael S Hofman9, Badrinath R Konety10, Nathan Lawrentschuk3, Damien Bolton11, Declan G Murphy3,12, Jeremy P Grummet1,13, Mark Frydenberg1,2. 1. Department of Surgery, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 2. Australian Urology Associates, Malvern, VIC, Australia. 3. Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 4. Healthcare Imaging Services, Richmond, VIC, Australia. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET, Monash Medical Centre, Bentleigh East, VIC, Australia. 6. Department of Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 7. TissuPath, Mount Waverley, VIC, Australia. 8. Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 9. Centre for Molecular Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 10. Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minnesota, MN, USA. 11. Department of Urology, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia. 12. Sir Peter MacCallum, Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia. 13. Department of Urology, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of 68 gallium prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography (68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT) with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in detecting and localising primary prostate cancer when compared with radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen pathology. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of men who underwent 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI for primary prostate cancer before RP across four centres between 2015 and 2018. Patients undergoing imaging for recurrent disease or before non-surgical treatment were excluded. We defined pathological index tumour as the lesion with highest International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group (GG) on RP specimen pathology. Our primary outcomes were rates of accurate detection and localisation of RP specimen pathology index tumour using 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT or mpMRI. We defined tumour detection as imaging lesion corresponding with RP specimen tumour on any imaging plane, and localisation as imaging lesion matching RP specimen index tumour in all sagittal, axial, and coronal planes. Secondary outcomes included localisation of clinically significant and transition zone (TZ) index tumours. We defined clinically significant disease as GG 3-5. We used descriptive statistics and the Mann-Whitney U-test to define and compare demographic and pathological characteristics between detected, missed and localised tumours using either imaging modality. We used the McNemar test to compare detection and localisation rates using 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI. RESULTS: In all, 205 men were included in our analysis, including 133 with clinically significant disease. There was no significant difference between 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI in the detection of any tumour (94% vs 95%, P > 0.9). There was also no significant difference between localisation of all index tumours (91% vs 89%, P = 0.47), clinically significant index tumours (96% vs 91%, P = 0.15) or TZ tumours (85% vs 80%, P > 0.9) using 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI. Limitations include retrospective study design and non-central review of imaging and pathology. CONCLUSION: We found no significant difference in the detection or localisation of primary prostate cancer between 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI. Further prospective studies are required to evaluate a combined PET/MRI model in minimising tumours missed by either modality.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of 68 gallium prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography (68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT) with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in detecting and localising primary prostate cancer when compared with radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen pathology. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of men who underwent 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI for primary prostate cancer before RP across four centres between 2015 and 2018. Patients undergoing imaging for recurrent disease or before non-surgical treatment were excluded. We defined pathological index tumour as the lesion with highest International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group (GG) on RP specimen pathology. Our primary outcomes were rates of accurate detection and localisation of RP specimen pathology index tumour using 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT or mpMRI. We defined tumour detection as imaging lesion corresponding with RP specimen tumour on any imaging plane, and localisation as imaging lesion matching RP specimen index tumour in all sagittal, axial, and coronal planes. Secondary outcomes included localisation of clinically significant and transition zone (TZ) index tumours. We defined clinically significant disease as GG 3-5. We used descriptive statistics and the Mann-Whitney U-test to define and compare demographic and pathological characteristics between detected, missed and localised tumours using either imaging modality. We used the McNemar test to compare detection and localisation rates using 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI. RESULTS: In all, 205 men were included in our analysis, including 133 with clinically significant disease. There was no significant difference between 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI in the detection of any tumour (94% vs 95%, P > 0.9). There was also no significant difference between localisation of all index tumours (91% vs 89%, P = 0.47), clinically significant index tumours (96% vs 91%, P = 0.15) or TZ tumours (85% vs 80%, P > 0.9) using 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI. Limitations include retrospective study design and non-central review of imaging and pathology. CONCLUSION: We found no significant difference in the detection or localisation of primary prostate cancer between 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI. Further prospective studies are required to evaluate a combined PET/MRI model in minimising tumours missed by either modality.
Authors: Nick Lasse Beetz; Franziska Dräger; Charlie Alexander Hamm; Seyd Shnayien; Madhuri Monique Rudolph; Konrad Froböse; Sefer Elezkurtaj; Matthias Haas; Patrick Asbach; Bernd Hamm; Samy Mahjoub; Frank Konietschke; Maximilian Wechsung; Felix Balzer; Hannes Cash; Sebastian Hofbauer; Tobias Penzkofer Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2022-10-08 Impact factor: 5.455
Authors: Ida Sonni; Ely R Felker; Andrew T Lenis; Anthony E Sisk; Shadfar Bahri; Martin Allen-Auerbach; Wesley R Armstrong; Voraparee Suvannarerg; Teeravut Tubtawee; Tristan Grogan; David Elashoff; Matthias Eiber; Steven S Raman; Johannes Czernin; Robert E Reiter; Jeremie Calais Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-10-14 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Boris Alexander Hadaschik; Stephan Tschirdewahn; Christopher Darr; Pedro Fragoso Costa; Claudia Kesch; Ulrich Krafft; Lukas Püllen; Nina Natascha Harke; Jochen Hess; Tibor Szarvas; Johannes Haubold; Henning Reis; Wolfgang Peter Fendler; Ken Herrmann; Jan Philipp Radtke Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2021-10
Authors: Pietro Pepe; Marco Roscigno; Ludovica Pepe; Paolo Panella; Marinella Tamburo; Giulia Marletta; Francesco Savoca; Giuseppe Candiano; Sebastiano Cosentino; Massimo Ippolito; Andreas Tsirgiotis; Michele Pennisi Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 4.964