Daniela A Ferraro1, Urs J Muehlematter1,2, Helena I Garcia Schüler3, Niels J Rupp4, Martin Huellner1, Michael Messerli1, Jan Hendrik Rüschoff4, Edwin E G W Ter Voert1, Thomas Hermanns5, Irene A Burger6,7. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zürich, Switzerland. 2. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Department of Pathology and Molecular Pathology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 5. Department of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 6. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zürich, Switzerland. Irene.Burger@usz.ch. 7. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Kantonsspital Baden, Baden, Switzerland. Irene.Burger@usz.ch.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Radical prostatectomy with extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) is a curative treatment option for patients with clinically significant localised prostate cancer. The decision to perform an ePLND can be challenging because the overall incidence of lymph node metastasis is relatively low and ePLND is not free of complications. Using current clinical nomograms to identify patients with nodal involvement, approximately 75-85% of ePLNDs performed are negative. The aim of this study was to assess the added value of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET in predicting lymph node metastasis in men with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET scans of 60 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy with ePLND were reviewed for qualitative (visual) assessment of suspicious nodes and assessment of quantitative parameters of the primary tumour in the prostate (SUVmax, total activity (PSMAtotal) and PSMA positive volume (PSMAvol)). Ability of quantitative PET parameters to predict nodal metastasis was assessed with receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. A multivariable logistic regression model combining PSA, Gleason score, visual nodal status on PET and primary tumour PSMAtotal was built. Net benefit at each risk threshold was compared with five nomograms: MSKCC nomogram, Yale formula, Roach formula, Winter nomogram and Partin tables (2016). RESULTS: Overall, pathology of ePLND specimens revealed 31 pelvic metastatic lymph nodes in 12 patients. 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET visual analysis correctly detected suspicious nodes in 7 patients, yielding a sensitivity of 58% and a specificity of 98%. The area under the ROC curve for primary tumour SUVmax was 0.70, for PSMAtotal 0.76 and for PSMAvol 0.75. The optimal cut-off for nodal involvement was PSMAtotal > 49.1. The PET model including PSA, Gleason score and quantitative PET parameters had a persistently higher net benefit compared with all clinical nomograms. CONCLUSION: Our model combining PSA, Gleason score and visual lymph node analysis on 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET with PSMAtotal of the primary tumour showed a tendency to improve patient selection for ePLND over the currently used clinical nomograms. Although this result has to be validated, 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET showed the potential to reduce unnecessary surgical procedures in patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer.
INTRODUCTION: Radical prostatectomy with extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) is a curative treatment option for patients with clinically significant localised prostate cancer. The decision to perform an ePLND can be challenging because the overall incidence of lymph node metastasis is relatively low and ePLND is not free of complications. Using current clinical nomograms to identify patients with nodal involvement, approximately 75-85% of ePLNDs performed are negative. The aim of this study was to assess the added value of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET in predicting lymph node metastasis in men with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET scans of 60 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy with ePLND were reviewed for qualitative (visual) assessment of suspicious nodes and assessment of quantitative parameters of the primary tumour in the prostate (SUVmax, total activity (PSMAtotal) and PSMA positive volume (PSMAvol)). Ability of quantitative PET parameters to predict nodal metastasis was assessed with receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. A multivariable logistic regression model combining PSA, Gleason score, visual nodal status on PET and primary tumour PSMAtotal was built. Net benefit at each risk threshold was compared with five nomograms: MSKCC nomogram, Yale formula, Roach formula, Winter nomogram and Partin tables (2016). RESULTS: Overall, pathology of ePLND specimens revealed 31 pelvic metastatic lymph nodes in 12 patients. 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET visual analysis correctly detected suspicious nodes in 7 patients, yielding a sensitivity of 58% and a specificity of 98%. The area under the ROC curve for primary tumour SUVmax was 0.70, for PSMAtotal 0.76 and for PSMAvol 0.75. The optimal cut-off for nodal involvement was PSMAtotal > 49.1. The PET model including PSA, Gleason score and quantitative PET parameters had a persistently higher net benefit compared with all clinical nomograms. CONCLUSION: Our model combining PSA, Gleason score and visual lymph node analysis on 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET with PSMAtotal of the primary tumour showed a tendency to improve patient selection for ePLND over the currently used clinical nomograms. Although this result has to be validated, 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET showed the potential to reduce unnecessary surgical procedures in patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer.
Entities:
Keywords:
Lymph node metastases; Net benefit; Nomogram; PET quantification; PET/CT; PET/MR; Prediction model; SUVmax; Staging
Authors: Wolfgang Peter Fendler; Jeremie Calais; Martin Allen-Auerbach; Christina Bluemel; Nina Eberhardt; Louise Emmett; Pawan Gupta; Markus Hartenbach; Thomas A Hope; Shozo Okamoto; Christian Helmut Pfob; Thorsten D Pöppel; Christoph Rischpler; Sarah Schwarzenböck; Vanessa Stebner; Marcus Unterrainer; Helle D Zacho; Tobias Maurer; Christian Gratzke; Alexander Crispin; Johannes Czernin; Ken Herrmann; Matthias Eiber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Felix K-H Chun; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Alberto Briganti; Andrea Gallina; Michael W Kattan; Francesco Montorsi; Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2006-08-11 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Nicola Fossati; Peter-Paul M Willemse; Thomas Van den Broeck; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Cathy Yuhong Yuan; Erik Briers; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Philip Cornford; Maria De Santis; Ekelechi MacPepple; Ann M Henry; Malcolm D Mason; Vsevolod B Matveev; Henk G van der Poel; Theo H van der Kwast; Olivier Rouvière; Ivo G Schoots; Thomas Wiegel; Thomas B Lam; Nicolas Mottet; Steven Joniau Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Marco Roscigno; Maria Nicolai; Giovanni La Croce; Federico Pellucchi; Manuela Scarcello; Antonino Saccà; Diego Angiolilli; Daniela Chinaglia; Luigi F Da Pozzo Journal: Front Surg Date: 2018-09-07
Authors: Matthew J Roberts; Andrew Morton; Nathan Papa; Anthony Franklin; Sheliyan Raveenthiran; William J Yaxley; Geoffrey Coughlin; Troy Gianduzzo; Boon Kua; Louise McEwan; David Wong; Brett Delahunt; Lars Egevad; Hemamali Samaratunga; Nicholas Brown; Robert Parkinson; Louise Emmett; John W Yaxley Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-03-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Laura Evangelista; Fabio Zattoni; Gianluca Cassarino; Paolo Artioli; Diego Cecchin; Fabrizio Dal Moro; Pietro Zucchetta Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-09-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Daniela A Ferraro; Fabienne Lehner; Daniel Eberli; Irene A Burger; Anton S Becker; Benedikt Kranzbühler; Ken Kudura; Iliana Mebert; Michael Messerli; Thomas Hermanns Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Matthijs C F Cysouw; Bernard H E Jansen; Tim van de Brug; Daniela E Oprea-Lager; Elisabeth Pfaehler; Bart M de Vries; Reindert J A van Moorselaar; Otto S Hoekstra; André N Vis; Ronald Boellaard Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-07-31 Impact factor: 9.236