Steven P Rowe1,2, Xin Li3,4, Bruce J Trock2, Rudolf A Werner3,5, Sarah Frey3, Michael DiGianvittorio3,6, J Keith Bleiler7, Diane K Reyes2, Rehab Abdallah3, Kenneth J Pienta2, Michael A Gorin3,2, Martin G Pomper3,2. 1. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland srowe8@jhmi.edu. 2. James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 4. Department of Radiology, Shandong Provincial Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan City, Shandong Province, China. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Wurzburg, Wurzburg, Germany. 6. Spectrum Medical Group, South Portland, Maine; and. 7. Greater Boston Urology, Dedham, Massachusetts.
Abstract
Bone metastases in prostate cancer (PCa) have important prognostic significance, and imaging modalities used for PCa staging should have high sensitivity for detecting such lesions. Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted PET radiotracers are promising new agents for imaging PCa. We undertook a head-to-head comparison of PSMA-targeted 2-(3-{1-carboxy-5-[(6-18F-fluoro-pyridine-3-carbonyl)-amino]-pentyl}-ureido)-pentanedioic acid (18F-DCFPyL) PET to Na18F PET to determine which modality was more sensitive for the detection of lesions suggestive of bone metastases in a group of patients with metastatic PCa. Methods: Patients with progressive, metastatic PCa were prospectively imaged with both 18F-DCFPyL and Na18F PET/CT, with both scans occurring within 24 h of each other. A consensus 2-reader central review was performed to identify all bone lesions suggestive of sites of PCa involvement on both scans, and maximized SUVs corrected for body weight (SUVmax) and lean body mass (SULmax) were recorded. Soft-tissue lesions were also noted on both scans, and SUVmax, SULmax, and PSMA reporting and data system (RADS) version 1.0 scores were recorded. Data from the 2 scans were compared using a generalized estimating equation. Results: In total, 16 patients meeting all inclusion criteria were enrolled in this study, and 15 of the 16 (93.8%) were imaged with both PET radiotracers. In total, 405 bone lesions suggestive of sites of PCa were identified on at least 1 scan. On 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT, 391 (96.5%) were definitively positive, 4 (1.0%) were equivocally positive, and 10 (2.5%) were negative. On Na18F PET/CT, the corresponding values were 388 (95.8%), 4 (1.0%), and 13 (3.2%). Of the definitively negative lesions on 18F-DCFPyL PET, 8 of 10 (80.0%) were sclerotic and 2 of 10 (20.0%) were infiltrative or marrow-based. Additionally, 12 of 13 (92.3%) of the definitively negative lesions on Na18F PET were infiltrative or marrow-based and 1 of 13 (7.7%) was lytic. Also identified were 78 PSMA-RADS-4, 17 PSMA-RADS-5, and 1 PSMA-RADS-3C soft-tissue lesions. Conclusion: PET/CT imaging using 18F-DCFPyL and Na18F PET had nearly identical sensitivities for the detection of bone lesions in patients with metastatic PCa. As would be expected, PSMA-targeted PET provides more information on soft-tissue disease. There may be little additional value to imaging PCa patients with Na18F after a PSMA-targeted PET scan has already been performed.
Bone metastases in prostate cancer (PCa) have important prognostic significance, and imaging modalities used for PCa staging should have high sensitivity for detecting such lesions. Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted PET radiotracers are promising new agents for imaging PCa. We undertook a head-to-head comparison of PSMA-targeted 2-(3-{1-carboxy-5-[(6-18F-fluoro-pyridine-3-carbonyl)-amino]-pentyl}-ureido)-pentanedioic acid (18F-DCFPyL) PET to Na18F PET to determine which modality was more sensitive for the detection of lesions suggestive of bone metastases in a group of patients with metastatic PCa. Methods: Patients with progressive, metastatic PCa were prospectively imaged with both 18F-DCFPyL and Na18F PET/CT, with both scans occurring within 24 h of each other. A consensus 2-reader central review was performed to identify all bone lesions suggestive of sites of PCa involvement on both scans, and maximized SUVs corrected for body weight (SUVmax) and lean body mass (SULmax) were recorded. Soft-tissue lesions were also noted on both scans, and SUVmax, SULmax, and PSMA reporting and data system (RADS) version 1.0 scores were recorded. Data from the 2 scans were compared using a generalized estimating equation. Results: In total, 16 patients meeting all inclusion criteria were enrolled in this study, and 15 of the 16 (93.8%) were imaged with both PET radiotracers. In total, 405 bone lesions suggestive of sites of PCa were identified on at least 1 scan. On 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT, 391 (96.5%) were definitively positive, 4 (1.0%) were equivocally positive, and 10 (2.5%) were negative. On Na18F PET/CT, the corresponding values were 388 (95.8%), 4 (1.0%), and 13 (3.2%). Of the definitively negative lesions on 18F-DCFPyL PET, 8 of 10 (80.0%) were sclerotic and 2 of 10 (20.0%) were infiltrative or marrow-based. Additionally, 12 of 13 (92.3%) of the definitively negative lesions on Na18F PET were infiltrative or marrow-based and 1 of 13 (7.7%) was lytic. Also identified were 78 PSMA-RADS-4, 17 PSMA-RADS-5, and 1 PSMA-RADS-3C soft-tissue lesions. Conclusion: PET/CT imaging using 18F-DCFPyL and Na18F PET had nearly identical sensitivities for the detection of bone lesions in patients with metastatic PCa. As would be expected, PSMA-targeted PET provides more information on soft-tissue disease. There may be little additional value to imaging PCa patients with Na18F after a PSMA-targeted PET scan has already been performed.
Authors: Zsolt Szabo; Esther Mena; Steven P Rowe; Donika Plyku; Rosa Nidal; Mario A Eisenberger; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Hong Fan; Robert F Dannals; Ying Chen; Ronnie C Mease; Melin Vranesic; Akrita Bhatnagar; George Sgouros; Steve Y Cho; Martin G Pomper Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Helle D Zacho; Julie B Nielsen; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Uwe Haberkorn; Nandita deSouza; Katja De Paepe; Katja Dettmann; Niels C Langkilde; Christian Haarmark; Rune V Fisker; Dennis T Arp; Jesper Carl; Jørgen B Jensen; Lars J Petersen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-06-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jeffrey J Tosoian; Michael A Gorin; Steven P Rowe; Darian Andreas; Zsolt Szabo; Kenneth J Pienta; Martin G Pomper; Tamara L Lotan; Ashley E Ross Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2016-09-19 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Steve Y Cho; Kenneth L Gage; Ronnie C Mease; Srinivasan Senthamizhchelvan; Daniel P Holt; Akimosa Jeffrey-Kwanisai; Christopher J Endres; Robert F Dannals; George Sgouros; Martin Lodge; Mario A Eisenberger; Ronald Rodriguez; Michael A Carducci; Camilo Rojas; Barbara S Slusher; Alan P Kozikowski; Martin G Pomper Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 10.057
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: 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: A Afshar-Oromieh; A Malcher; M Eder; M Eisenhut; H G Linhart; B A Hadaschik; T Holland-Letz; F L Giesel; C Kratochwil; S Haufe; U Haberkorn; C M Zechmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-11-24 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Frederik L Giesel; B Hadaschik; J Cardinale; J Radtke; M Vinsensia; W Lehnert; C Kesch; Y Tolstov; S Singer; N Grabe; S Duensing; M Schäfer; O C Neels; W Mier; U Haberkorn; K Kopka; C Kratochwil Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-11-26 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Michael A Gorin; Steven P Rowe; Mark C Markowski; Ramy Sedhom; Wei Fu; Javaughn Corey R Gray; Mario A Eisenberger; Martin G Pomper; Kenneth J Pienta Journal: J Urol Date: 2020-04-06 Impact factor: 7.450
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: Roberto Fedrigo; Dan J Kadrmas; Patricia E Edem; Lauren Fougner; Ivan S Klyuzhin; M Peter Petric; François Bénard; Arman Rahmim; Carlos Uribe Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2022-01-15