Stefan A Koerber1,2,3, Gerald Stach4, Clemens Kratochwil4,5, Matthias F Haefner1,2,3, Henrik Rathke4, Klaus Herfarth1,2,3,6, Klaus Kopka7,8, Tim Holland-Letz9, Peter L Choyke10, Uwe Haberkorn4,5, Juergen Debus1,2,3,6,8,11, Frederik L Giesel12,5,8. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. 2. National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. 5. Clinical Cooperation Unit Nuclear Medicine, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany. 6. Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. 7. Division of Radiopharmaceutical Chemistry, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany. 8. German Cancer Consortium, Heidelberg, Germany. 9. Department of Biostatistics, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany. 10. Molecular Imaging Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; and. 11. Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany. 12. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany frederik.giesel@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Abstract
The importance of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT for primary staging of treatment-naïve prostate cancer patients is still under debate. Therefore, the present study aimed to evaluate the role of PSMA PET/CT in detecting nodal metastases in a large cohort of men and compare imaging results with the risk of lymph node involvement based on the Roach formula. Methods: In total, 280 men with newly diagnosed prostate carcinoma were included in the present study. For all patients, PSMA PET/CT was performed for primary staging. Median age was 67 y (range, 38-84 y), and 84% of all patients were classified as high-risk according to the d'Amico criteria. The risk of lymph node involvement was calculated using the Roach formula and compared with the PSMA PET/CT results. Results: PSMA-positive nodes were detected in 90 of 280 men (32.1%). Although most nodal metastases occurred within the pelvis, 36.0% were in extrapelvic sites. In 9 patients (3.2%), nodal metastases occurred in the Virchow node. After comparison of PSMA data with the results of the Roach formula, an area under the curve of 0.781 was obtained for the Roach predictions. Conclusion: For treatment-naïve prostate cancer patients, PSMA PET/CT is well suited for the detection of nodal metastases. However, the original Roach formula can still be used for a quick assessment of potential lymphatic spread in daily clinical routine.
The importance of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT for primary staging of treatment-naïve prostate cancer patients is still under debate. Therefore, the present study aimed to evaluate the role of PSMA PET/CT in detecting nodal metastases in a large cohort of men and compare imaging results with the risk of lymph node involvement based on the Roach formula. Methods: In total, 280 men with newly diagnosed prostate carcinoma were included in the present study. For all patients, PSMA PET/CT was performed for primary staging. Median age was 67 y (range, 38-84 y), and 84% of all patients were classified as high-risk according to the d'Amico criteria. The risk of lymph node involvement was calculated using the Roach formula and compared with the PSMA PET/CT results. Results: PSMA-positive nodes were detected in 90 of 280 men (32.1%). Although most nodal metastases occurred within the pelvis, 36.0% were in extrapelvic sites. In 9 patients (3.2%), nodal metastases occurred in the Virchow node. After comparison of PSMA data with the results of the Roach formula, an area under the curve of 0.781 was obtained for the Roach predictions. Conclusion: For treatment-naïve prostate cancer patients, PSMA PET/CT is well suited for the detection of nodal metastases. However, the original Roach formula can still be used for a quick assessment of potential lymphatic spread in daily clinical routine.
Authors: Maria Vinsensia; Peter L Chyoke; Boris Hadaschik; Tim Holland-Letz; Jan Moltz; Klaus Kopka; Isabel Rauscher; Walter Mier; Markus Schwaiger; Uwe Haberkorn; Tobias Mauer; Clemens Kratochwil; Matthias Eiber; Frederik L Giesel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Claudia Kesch; Maria Vinsensia; Jan P Radtke; Heinz P Schlemmer; Martina Heller; Elena Ellert; Tim Holland-Letz; Stefan Duensing; Nils Grabe; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Kathrin Wieczorek; Martin Schäfer; Oliver C Neels; Jens Cardinale; Clemens Kratochwil; Markus Hohenfellner; Klaus Kopka; Uwe Haberkorn; Boris A Hadaschik; Frederik L Giesel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: N G Di Muzio; A Fodor; B Noris Chiorda; S Broggi; P Mangili; R Valdagni; I Dell'Oca; M Pasetti; C L Deantoni; A Chiara; G Berardi; A Briganti; R Calandrino; C Cozzarini; C Fiorino Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2016-03-05 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: Giorgio Gandaglia; Nicola Fossati; Emanuele Zaffuto; Marco Bandini; Paolo Dell'Oglio; Carlo Andrea Bravi; Giuseppe Fallara; Francesco Pellegrino; Luigi Nocera; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Zhe Tian; Massimo Freschi; Rodolfo Montironi; Francesco Montorsi; Alberto Briganti Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2017-04-12 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Matthias Eiber; Wolfgang P Fendler; Steven P Rowe; Jeremie Calais; Michael S Hofman; Tobias Maurer; Sarah M Schwarzenboeck; Clemens Kratowchil; Ken Herrmann; Frederik L Giesel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: John B Eifler; Zhaoyang Feng; Brian M Lin; Michael T Partin; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Misop Han; Jonathan I Epstein; Patrick C Walsh; Bruce J Trock; Alan W Partin Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-07-26 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: A V D'Amico; R Whittington; S B Malkowicz; D Schultz; K Blank; G A Broderick; J E Tomaszewski; A A Renshaw; I Kaplan; C J Beard; A Wein Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-09-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Annika Herlemann; Vera Wenter; Alexander Kretschmer; Kolja M Thierfelder; Peter Bartenstein; Claudius Faber; Franz-Josef Gildehaus; Christian G Stief; Christian Gratzke; Wolfgang P Fendler Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jens Cardinale; René Martin; Yvonne Remde; Martin Schäfer; Antje Hienzsch; Sandra Hübner; Anna-Maria Zerges; Heike Marx; Ronny Hesse; Klaus Weber; Rene Smits; Alexander Hoepping; Marco Müller; Oliver C Neels; Klaus Kopka Journal: Pharmaceuticals (Basel) Date: 2017-09-27
Authors: Shaojun Zhu; Nader Hirmas; Jeremie Calais; Matthias Eiber; Boris Hadaschik; Martin Stuschke; Ken Herrmann; Johannes Czernin; Amar U Kishan; Nicholas G Nickols; David Elashoff; Wolfgang P Fendler Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Stefan A Koerber; Johannes Boesch; Clemens Kratochwil; Ingmar Schlampp; Jonas Ristau; Erik Winter; Stefanie Zschaebitz; Luisa Hofer; Klaus Herfarth; Klaus Kopka; Tim Holland-Letz; Dirk Jaeger; Markus Hohenfellner; Uwe Haberkorn; Juergen Debus; Frederik L Giesel Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-03-25 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Melline G M Schilham; Patrik Zamecnik; Bastiaan M Privé; Bas Israël; Mark Rijpkema; Tom Scheenen; Jelle O Barentsz; James Nagarajah; Martin Gotthardt Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-01-30 Impact factor: 10.057