Ludwike W M van Kalmthout1,2, Harm H E van Melick2, Jules Lavalaye3, Richard P Meijer4, Anko Kooistra5, John M H de Klerk6, Arthur J A T Braat1, H Peter Kaldeway3, Peter C de Bruin7, Bart de Keizer1, Marnix G E H Lam1. 1. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Urology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein and Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein and Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Oncological Urology, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Urology, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Pathology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein and Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prospective validation of 68Ga prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computerized tomography is lacking in initial staging of prostate cancer. In this study we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of 68Ga prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for detecting lymph node metastasis in patients with intermediate-high risk prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer and negative bone scan findings at greater than 10% MSKCC (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center) risk for lymph node metastasis were prospectively included in study from October 2017 to October 2018. In candidates for extended pelvic lymph node dissection 68Ga prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computerized tomography was performed prior to planned surgery. Scan results were evaluated in a second tumor board meeting to assess a potential change of management. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value for detecting lymph node metastasis were calculated per patient and per resection template using histopathology as the reference. A positron emission tomography based change of management was also reported. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients were eligible for analysis and 97 extended pelvic lymph node dissections were performed. In 41 patients (42.3%) there was a total of 85 lymph node metastases. Positron emission tomography was positive in 17 patients, resulting in 41.5% patient based sensitivity (95% CI 26.7-57.8) for detecting lymph node metastasis. The patient based specificity rate was 90.9% (95% CI 79.3-96.6), and positive and negative predictive values were 77.3% (95% CI 54.2-91.3) and 67.6% (95% CI 55.6-77.7), respectively. A positron emission tomography based change of treatment was observed in 13 patients (12.6%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer at greater than 10% MSKCC risk for lymph node involvement 68Ga prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computerized tomography detected lymph node metastasis with high specificity and moderate sensitivity. This led to a treatment change in 12.6% of patients.
PURPOSE: Prospective validation of 68Ga prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computerized tomography is lacking in initial staging of prostate cancer. In this study we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of 68Ga prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for detecting lymph node metastasis in patients with intermediate-high risk prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer and negative bone scan findings at greater than 10% MSKCC (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center) risk for lymph node metastasis were prospectively included in study from October 2017 to October 2018. In candidates for extended pelvic lymph node dissection 68Ga prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computerized tomography was performed prior to planned surgery. Scan results were evaluated in a second tumor board meeting to assess a potential change of management. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value for detecting lymph node metastasis were calculated per patient and per resection template using histopathology as the reference. A positron emission tomography based change of management was also reported. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients were eligible for analysis and 97 extended pelvic lymph node dissections were performed. In 41 patients (42.3%) there was a total of 85 lymph node metastases. Positron emission tomography was positive in 17 patients, resulting in 41.5% patient based sensitivity (95% CI 26.7-57.8) for detecting lymph node metastasis. The patient based specificity rate was 90.9% (95% CI 79.3-96.6), and positive and negative predictive values were 77.3% (95% CI 54.2-91.3) and 67.6% (95% CI 55.6-77.7), respectively. A positron emission tomography based change of treatment was observed in 13 patients (12.6%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer at greater than 10% MSKCC risk for lymph node involvement 68Ga prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computerized tomography detected lymph node metastasis with high specificity and moderate sensitivity. This led to a treatment change in 12.6% of patients.
Authors: Christopher Darr; Nina N Harke; Jan Philipp Radtke; Leubet Yirga; Claudia Kesch; Maarten R Grootendorst; Wolfgang P Fendler; Pedro Fragoso Costa; Christoph Rischpler; Christine Praus; Johannes Haubold; Henning Reis; Thomas Hager; Ken Herrmann; Ina Binse; Boris Hadaschik Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-02-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Yonaton Zarbiv; Yehudit Peerless; Marc Wygoda; Marina Orevi; Karen Meir; Ofer N Gofrit; Vladimir Yutkin; Stephen Frank Journal: Cancer Rep (Hoboken) Date: 2021-05-02
Authors: Simona Malaspina; Mikael Anttinen; Pekka Taimen; Ivan Jambor; Minna Sandell; Irina Rinta-Kiikka; Sami Kajander; Jukka Schildt; Ekaterina Saukko; Tommi Noponen; Jani Saunavaara; Peter B Dean; Roberto Blanco Sequeiros; Hannu J Aronen; Jukka Kemppainen; Marko Seppänen; Peter J Boström; Otto Ettala Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-03-13 Impact factor: 9.236
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: B H E Jansen; Y J L Bodar; G J C Zwezerijnen; D Meijer; J P van der Voorn; J A Nieuwenhuijzen; M Wondergem; T A Roeleveld; R Boellaard; O S Hoekstra; R J A van Moorselaar; D E Oprea-Lager; A N Vis Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-08-12 Impact factor: 9.236