Daniela A Ferraro1, Helena I Garcia Schüler2, Urs J Muehlematter1,3, Daniel Eberli4, Julian Müller1, Alexander Müller5, Roger Gablinger6, Helmut Kranzbühler7, Aurelius Omlin8, Philipp A Kaufmann1, Thomas Hermanns4, Irene A Burger9,10. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zürich, Switzerland. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. 3. Department of Interventional and Diagnostic Radiology, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. 4. Department of Urology, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. 5. Department of Urology, Spital Limmattal, Schlieren, Switzerland. 6. Uroviva, Zürich, Switzerland. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stadtspital Triemli, Zürich, Switzerland. 8. Department of Medical Oncology and Haematology, Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 9. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zürich, University of Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zürich, Switzerland. Irene.burger@usz.ch. 10. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Kantonsspital Baden, Baden, Switzerland. Irene.burger@usz.ch.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate staging is of major importance to determine the optimal treatment modality for patients with prostate cancer. Positron emission tomography (PET) with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is a promising technique that outperformed conventional imaging in the detection of nodal and distant metastases in previous studies. However, it is still unclear whether the superior sensitivity and specificity also translate into improved patient management. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for staging of intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer and its potential impact on disease management. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, 116 patients who underwent 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT or MRI scans for staging of their intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer between April 2016 and May 2018 were included. The potential impact of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET staging on patient management was assessed within a simulated multidisciplinary tumour board where hypothetical treatment decisions based on clinical information and conventional imaging alone was determined. This treatment decision was compared with the treatment recommendation based on clinical information and 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET imaging. RESULTS: The primary tumour was positive on 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET in 113 patients (97%). Nodal metastases were detected in 28 patients (24%) and bone metastases in 14 patients (12%). Compared with clinical staging and conventional imaging, 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET resulted in new information in 42 of 116 patients (36%). In 32 of 116 patients (27%), this information would most likely have changed the management into a different therapy modality (15 patients, 13%) or adjusted treatment details (e.g. modification of radiotherapy field or lymph node dissection template; 17 patients, 14%). CONCLUSION: Information from 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET staging has the potential to change the management in more than a fourth of the patients who underwent PET staging for their intermediate to high-risk prostate cancer. Whether these more personalized 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET-based treatment decisions will improve patient outcome needs further investigation.
BACKGROUND: Accurate staging is of major importance to determine the optimal treatment modality for patients with prostate cancer. Positron emission tomography (PET) with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is a promising technique that outperformed conventional imaging in the detection of nodal and distant metastases in previous studies. However, it is still unclear whether the superior sensitivity and specificity also translate into improved patient management. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for staging of intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer and its potential impact on disease management. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, 116 patients who underwent 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT or MRI scans for staging of their intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer between April 2016 and May 2018 were included. The potential impact of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET staging on patient management was assessed within a simulated multidisciplinary tumour board where hypothetical treatment decisions based on clinical information and conventional imaging alone was determined. This treatment decision was compared with the treatment recommendation based on clinical information and 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET imaging. RESULTS: The primary tumour was positive on 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET in 113 patients (97%). Nodal metastases were detected in 28 patients (24%) and bone metastases in 14 patients (12%). Compared with clinical staging and conventional imaging, 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET resulted in new information in 42 of 116 patients (36%). In 32 of 116 patients (27%), this information would most likely have changed the management into a different therapy modality (15 patients, 13%) or adjusted treatment details (e.g. modification of radiotherapy field or lymph node dissection template; 17 patients, 14%). CONCLUSION: Information from 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET staging has the potential to change the management in more than a fourth of the patients who underwent PET staging for their intermediate to high-risk prostate cancer. Whether these more personalized 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET-based treatment decisions will improve patient outcome needs further investigation.
Entities:
Keywords:
Change in management; Detection rate; PSMA; Prostate cancer; Staging
Authors: D Gabriele; D Collura; M Oderda; I Stura; C Fiorito; F Porpiglia; C Terrone; M Zacchero; C Guiot; P Gabriele Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-08-15 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: I Berger; C Annabattula; J Lewis; D V Shetty; J Kam; F Maclean; M Arianayagam; B Canagasingham; R Ferguson; M Khadra; R Ko; M Winter; H Loh; C Varol Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Hebert Alberto Vargas; Rachel Schor-Bardach; Niamh Long; Anna N Kirzner; Jane D Cunningham; Debra A Goldman; Chaya S Moskowitz; Ramon E Sosa; Evis Sala; David M Panicek; Hedvig Hricak Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2017-01
Authors: Benedikt Kranzbühler; Hannes Nagel; Anton S Becker; Julian Müller; Martin Huellner; Paul Stolzmann; Urs Muehlematter; Matthias Guckenberger; Philipp A Kaufmann; Daniel Eberli; Irene A Burger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-10-14 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Nicolas Mottet; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Erik Briers; Marcus G Cumberbatch; Maria De Santis; Nicola Fossati; Tobias Gross; Ann M Henry; Steven Joniau; Thomas B Lam; Malcolm D Mason; Vsevolod B Matveev; Paul C Moldovan; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Thomas Van den Broeck; Henk G van der Poel; Theo H van der Kwast; Olivier Rouvière; Ivo G Schoots; Thomas Wiegel; Philip Cornford Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Frederik L Giesel; H Fiedler; M Stefanova; F Sterzing; M Rius; K Kopka; J H Moltz; A Afshar-Oromieh; P L Choyke; U Haberkorn; C Kratochwil Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-07-11 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Florian Sterzing; Clemens Kratochwil; Hannah Fiedler; Sonja Katayama; Gregor Habl; Klaus Kopka; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Jürgen Debus; Uwe Haberkorn; Frederik L Giesel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Michael Messerli; Virginia Liberini; Hannes Grünig; Alexander Maurer; Stephan Skawran; Niklas Lohaus; Lars Husmann; Erika Orita; Josephine Trinckauf; Philipp A Kaufmann; Martin W Huellner Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-09-14 Impact factor: 3.629
Authors: Daniela A Ferraro; Andreas M Hötker; Olivio F Donati; Irene A Burger; Anton S Becker; Iliana Mebert; Riccardo Laudicella; Anka Baltensperger; Niels J Rupp; Jan H Rueschoff; Julian Müller; Ashkan Mortezavi; Marcelo T Sapienza; Daniel Eberli Journal: Eur J Hybrid Imaging Date: 2022-07-18
Authors: Fernando Sabino M Monteiro; Juçara Motta Serafim Eliam; Rafaela Gomes de Jesus; Pedro Cavalcante; Gustavo do Vale Gomes; Bruno Hochhegger; Vinicius K Gonçalves; Laura Von Wallwitz Freitas; Diego H Roman; Andre Poisl Fay Journal: Prostate Int Date: 2020-08-13