Francesco Ceci1,2,3, Lorenzo Bianchi4,5, Marco Borghesi4,5, Giulia Polverari6, Andrea Farolfi6, Alberto Briganti7, Riccardo Schiavina4,5, Eugenio Brunocilla4,5, Paolo Castellucci6, Stefano Fanti6. 1. Metropolitan Nuclear Medicine, S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. francesco.ceci@unito.it. 2. Nuclear Medicine, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Corso AM Dogliotti, 14, 10129, Turin, Italy. francesco.ceci@unito.it. 3. Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine (DIMES), Cardio-Nephro-Thoracic Sciences Doctorate, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. francesco.ceci@unito.it. 4. Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine (DIMES), Cardio-Nephro-Thoracic Sciences Doctorate, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 5. Department of Urology, S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 6. Metropolitan Nuclear Medicine, S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 7. Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop a clinical nomogram to predict gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography (68Ga-PSMA-11-PET/CT) positivity in different clinical settings of PSA failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven hundred three (n = 703) prostate cancer (PCa) patients with confirmed PSA failure after radical therapy were enrolled. Patients were stratified according to different clinical settings (first-time biochemical recurrence [BCR]: group 1; BCR after salvage therapy: group 2; biochemical persistence after radical prostatectomy [BCP]: group 3; advanced-stage PCa before second-line systemic therapies: group 4). First, we assessed 68Ga-PSMA-11-PET/CT positivity rate. Second, multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to determine predictors of positive scan. Third, regression-based coefficients were used to develop a nomogram predicting positive 68Ga-PSMA-11-PET/CT result and 200 bootstrap resamples were used for internal validation. Fourth, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to identify the most informative nomogram's derived cutoff. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was implemented to quantify nomogram's clinical benefit. RESULTS: 68Ga-PSMA-11-PET/CT overall positivity rate was 51.2%, while it was 40.3% in group 1, 54% in group 2, 60.5% in group 3, and 86.9% in group 4 (p < 0.001). At multivariable analyses, ISUP grade, PSA, PSA doubling time, and clinical setting were independent predictors of a positive scan (all p ≤ 0.04). A nomogram based on covariates included in the multivariate model demonstrated a bootstrap-corrected accuracy of 82%. The nomogram-derived best cutoff value was 40%. In DCA, the nomogram revealed clinical net benefit of > 10%. CONCLUSIONS: This novel nomogram proved its good accuracy in predicting a positive scan, with values ≥ 40% providing the most informative cutoff in counselling patients to 68Ga-PSMA-11-PET/CT. This tool might be important as a guide to clinicians in the best use of PSMA-based PET imaging.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop a clinical nomogram to predict gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography (68Ga-PSMA-11-PET/CT) positivity in different clinical settings of PSA failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven hundred three (n = 703) prostate cancer (PCa) patients with confirmed PSA failure after radical therapy were enrolled. Patients were stratified according to different clinical settings (first-time biochemical recurrence [BCR]: group 1; BCR after salvage therapy: group 2; biochemical persistence after radical prostatectomy [BCP]: group 3; advanced-stage PCa before second-line systemic therapies: group 4). First, we assessed 68Ga-PSMA-11-PET/CT positivity rate. Second, multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to determine predictors of positive scan. Third, regression-based coefficients were used to develop a nomogram predicting positive 68Ga-PSMA-11-PET/CT result and 200 bootstrap resamples were used for internal validation. Fourth, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to identify the most informative nomogram's derived cutoff. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was implemented to quantify nomogram's clinical benefit. RESULTS: 68Ga-PSMA-11-PET/CT overall positivity rate was 51.2%, while it was 40.3% in group 1, 54% in group 2, 60.5% in group 3, and 86.9% in group 4 (p < 0.001). At multivariable analyses, ISUP grade, PSA, PSA doubling time, and clinical setting were independent predictors of a positive scan (all p ≤ 0.04). A nomogram based on covariates included in the multivariate model demonstrated a bootstrap-corrected accuracy of 82%. The nomogram-derived best cutoff value was 40%. In DCA, the nomogram revealed clinical net benefit of > 10%. CONCLUSIONS: This novel nomogram proved its good accuracy in predicting a positive scan, with values ≥ 40% providing the most informative cutoff in counselling patients to 68Ga-PSMA-11-PET/CT. This tool might be important as a guide to clinicians in the best use of PSMA-based PET imaging.
Authors: Louise Emmett; Charlotte Yin; Megan Crumbaker; George Hruby; Andrew Kneebone; Richard Epstein; Quoc Nguyen; Adam Hickey; Noah Ihsheish; Gordon O'Neill; Lisa Horvath; Venu Chalasani; Phillip Stricker; Anthony M Joshua Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-12-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Joshua J Morigi; Phillip D Stricker; Pim J van Leeuwen; Reuben Tang; Bao Ho; Quoc Nguyen; George Hruby; Gerald Fogarty; Raj Jagavkar; Andrew Kneebone; Adam Hickey; Stefano Fanti; Lisa Tarlinton; Louise Emmett Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Lorenzo Bianchi; Alessandro Nini; Marco Bianchi; Giorgio Gandaglia; Nicola Fossati; Nazareno Suardi; Marco Moschini; Paolo Dell'Oglio; Riccardo Schiavina; Francesco Montorsi; Alberto Briganti Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-12-31 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: S Gillessen; A Omlin; G Attard; J S de Bono; E Efstathiou; K Fizazi; S Halabi; P S Nelson; O Sartor; M R Smith; H R Soule; H Akaza; T M Beer; H Beltran; A M Chinnaiyan; G Daugaard; I D Davis; M De Santis; C G Drake; R A Eeles; S Fanti; M E Gleave; A Heidenreich; M Hussain; N D James; F E Lecouvet; C J Logothetis; K Mastris; S Nilsson; W K Oh; D Olmos; A R Padhani; C Parker; M A Rubin; J A Schalken; H I Scher; A Sella; N D Shore; E J Small; C N Sternberg; H Suzuki; C J Sweeney; I F Tannock; B Tombal Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2016-05-02 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Piet Ost; Alberto Bossi; Karel Decaestecker; Gert De Meerleer; Gianluca Giannarini; R Jeffrey Karnes; Mack Roach; Alberto Briganti Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-09-17 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Frédéric Bois; Camille Noirot; Sébastien Dietemann; Ismini C Mainta; Thomas Zilli; Valentina Garibotto; Martin A Walter Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-12-15
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: Francesco Ceci; Daniela E Oprea-Lager; Louise Emmett; Judit A Adam; Jamshed Bomanji; Johannes Czernin; Matthias Eiber; Uwe Haberkorn; Michael S Hofman; Thomas A Hope; Rakesh Kumar; Steven P Rowe; Sarah M Schwarzenboeck; Stefano Fanti; Ken Herrmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ian Leigh Alberts; Svenja Elizabeth Seide; Clemens Mingels; Karl Peter Bohn; Kuangyu Shi; Helle D Zacho; Axel Rominger; Ali Afshar-Oromieh Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-02-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Fabio Zattoni; Isabel Heidegger; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Alexander Kretschmer; Giancarlo Marra; Alessandro Magli; Felix Preisser; Derya Tilki; Igor Tsaur; Massimo Valerio; Roderick van den Bergh; Claudia Kesch; Francesco Ceci; Christian Fankhauser; Giorgio Gandaglia Journal: Front Surg Date: 2021-07-09