Kelsey L Pomykala1,2, Johannes Czernin1,3,4, Tristan R Grogan5, Wesley R Armstrong1, John Williams1, Jeremie Calais6,3,4. 1. Ahmanson Translational Theranostics Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, California. 2. Department of Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, California. 3. Institute of Urologic Oncology, UCLA, Los Angeles, California. 4. Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, UCLA, Los Angeles, California; and. 5. Department of Medicine Statistics Core, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, California. 6. Ahmanson Translational Theranostics Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, California jcalais@mednet.ucla.edu.
Abstract
Our purpose was to determine the relationship between serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level categories (<5, 5-10, 10-20, and >20 ng/mL) and the incidence of bone metastases detected by total-body 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-11 PET/CT and to assess if expanding the 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging field to include the vertex and lower extremities (total-body acquisition) affects bone metastasis detection rates and patient management. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of 388 prostate cancer patients enrolled in 5 prospective studies (NCT02940262, NCT03368547, NCT03042312, NCT04050215, and NCT03515577). All underwent 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT scans acquired from vertex to toes for primary staging (n = 93/388, 24%), biochemical recurrence (BCR) localization (n = 225/388, 58%), or restaging metastatic disease (M1) before or during systemic therapy (n = 70/388, 18%) between September 2017 and May 2018. Results: In total, 321 of 388 patients (83%) had a positive 68Ga-PSMA-11 study. PSMA-positive bone lesions were found in 105 of 388 (27%) patients, with an incidence that was positively associated with serum PSA level (<10 ng/mL, 21%; 10-20 ng/mL, 41%; ≥20 ng/mL, 41%; P < 0.001). This association was maintained for all 3 indications: initial staging, BCR, and restaging M1. Bone metastases occurred most frequently in restaging M1, followed by BCR and initial staging. Bone metastasis incidence was not significantly associated with National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk score (P = 0.22). The average number of PSMA-positive regions also increased with serum PSA level (P < 0.001). Eighteen of 388 (5%) and 18 of 388 (5%) had lesions above the superior orbital ridge and below the proximal third of the femur, respectively. There was only 1 of 388 patients (0.26%) in whom the total-body PET acquisition had an impact on management. Conclusion: Bone metastases as assessed with 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT are prevalent even in patients with low serum PSA levels. Therefore, current guidelines for bone assessments in prostate cancer patients should be revisited because 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT may provide additional information for accurate bone staging at low serum PSA levels. Including the total body (from vertex to toes) in 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging revealed additional bone lesions in 6% of patients, but without significantly affecting patient management.
Our purpose was to determine the relationship between serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level categories (<5, 5-10, 10-20, and >20 ng/mL) and the incidence of bone metastases detected by total-body 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-11 PET/CT and to assess if expanding the 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging field to include the vertex and lower extremities (total-body acquisition) affects bone metastasis detection rates and patient management. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of 388 prostate cancer patients enrolled in 5 prospective studies (NCT02940262, NCT03368547, NCT03042312, NCT04050215, and NCT03515577). All underwent 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT scans acquired from vertex to toes for primary staging (n = 93/388, 24%), biochemical recurrence (BCR) localization (n = 225/388, 58%), or restaging metastatic disease (M1) before or during systemic therapy (n = 70/388, 18%) between September 2017 and May 2018. Results: In total, 321 of 388 patients (83%) had a positive 68Ga-PSMA-11 study. PSMA-positive bone lesions were found in 105 of 388 (27%) patients, with an incidence that was positively associated with serum PSA level (<10 ng/mL, 21%; 10-20 ng/mL, 41%; ≥20 ng/mL, 41%; P < 0.001). This association was maintained for all 3 indications: initial staging, BCR, and restaging M1. Bone metastases occurred most frequently in restaging M1, followed by BCR and initial staging. Bone metastasis incidence was not significantly associated with National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk score (P = 0.22). The average number of PSMA-positive regions also increased with serum PSA level (P < 0.001). Eighteen of 388 (5%) and 18 of 388 (5%) had lesions above the superior orbital ridge and below the proximal third of the femur, respectively. There was only 1 of 388 patients (0.26%) in whom the total-body PET acquisition had an impact on management. Conclusion: Bone metastases as assessed with 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT are prevalent even in patients with low serum PSA levels. Therefore, current guidelines for bone assessments in prostate cancer patients should be revisited because 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT may provide additional information for accurate bone staging at low serum PSA levels. Including the total body (from vertex to toes) in 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging revealed additional bone lesions in 6% of patients, but without significantly affecting patient management.
Authors: Jeremie Calais; Amar U Kishan; Minsong Cao; Wolfgang P Fendler; Matthias Eiber; Ken Herrmann; Francesco Ceci; Robert E Reiter; Matthew B Rettig; John V Hegde; Narek Shaverdian; Chris R King; Michael L Steinberg; Johannes Czernin; Nicholas G Nickols Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-04-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Wolfgang P Fendler; Matthias Eiber; Mohsen Beheshti; Jamshed Bomanji; Francesco Ceci; Steven Cho; Frederik Giesel; Uwe Haberkorn; Thomas A Hope; Klaus Kopka; Bernd J Krause; Felix M Mottaghy; Heiko Schöder; John Sunderland; Simon Wan; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Stefano Fanti; Ken Herrmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Eva Dyrberg; Helle W Hendel; Tri Hien Viet Huynh; Tobias Wirenfeldt Klausen; Vibeke B Løgager; Claus Madsen; Erik M Pedersen; Maria Pedersen; Henrik S Thomsen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-08-21 Impact factor: 5.315
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: Isabel Rauscher; Tobias Maurer; Wolfgang P Fendler; Wieland H Sommer; Markus Schwaiger; Matthias Eiber Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 3.909
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: Charles Marcus; Yoram Baum; Olayinka A Abiodun-Ojo; Ashesh B Jani; David M Schuster Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2021-05-01 Impact factor: 10.782
Authors: Daniel E Hagaman; Jossana A Damasco; Joy Vanessa D Perez; Raniv D Rojo; Marites P Melancon Journal: Molecules Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 4.411