Bernard H E Jansen1,2, Matthijs C F Cysouw3,4, André N Vis2, Reindert J A van Moorselaar2, Jens Voortman4, Yves J L Bodar3,2, Patrick R Schober5, N Harry Hendrikse3,6, Otto S Hoekstra3, Ronald Boellaard3, D E Oprea-Lager3. 1. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands bh.jansen@amsterdamumc.nl. 2. Department of Urology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and. 6. Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Center, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
Quantitative evaluation of radiolabeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET scans may be used to monitor treatment response in patients with prostate cancer (PCa). To interpret longitudinal differences in PSMA uptake, the intrinsic variability of tracer uptake in PCa lesions needs to be defined. The aim of this study was to investigate the repeatability of quantitative PET/CT measurements using 18F-DCFPyL ([2-(3-(1-carboxy-5-[(6-18F-fluoro-pyridine-3-carbonyl)-amino]-pentyl)-ureido)-pentanedioic acid], a second-generation 18F-PSMA-ligand) in patients with PCa. Methods: Twelve patients with metastatic PCa were prospectively included, of whom 2 were excluded from final analyses. Patients received 2 whole-body 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT scans (median dose, 317 MBq; uptake time, 120 min) within a median of 4 d (range, 1-11 d). After semiautomatic (isocontour-based) tumor delineation, the following lesion-based metrics were derived: mean, peak, and maximum tumor-to-blood ratio; SUVmean, SUVpeak, and SUVmax normalized to body weight; tumor volume; and total lesion uptake (TLU). Additionally, patient-based total tumor volume (TTV) (sum of PSMA-positive tumor volumes) and total tumor burden (TTB) (sum of all lesion TLUs) were derived. Repeatability was analyzed using repeatability coefficients (RC) and intraclass correlation coefficients. Additionally, the effect of point-spread function (PSF) image reconstruction on the repeatability of uptake metrics was evaluated. Results: In total, 36 18F-DCFPyL PET-positive lesions were analyzed (≤5 lesions per patient). The RCs for mean, peak, and maximum tumor-to-blood ratio were 31.8%, 31.7%, and 37.3%, respectively. For SUVmean, SUVpeak, and SUVmax, the RCs were 24.4%, 25.3%, and 31.0%, respectively. All intraclass correlation coefficients were at least 0.97. Tumor volume delineations were quite repeatable, with an RC of 28.1% for individual lesion volumes and 17.0% for TTV. TTB had an RC of 23.2% and 33.4% when based on SUVmean and mean tumor-to-blood ratio, respectively. Small lesions (<4.2 cm3) had worse repeatability for volume measurements. The repeatability of SUVpeak, TLU, and all patient-level metrics was not affected by PSF reconstruction. Conclusion: 18F-DCFPyL uptake measurements are quite repeatable and can be used for clinical validation in future treatment response assessment studies. Patient-based TTV may be preferred for multicenter studies because its repeatability was both high and robust to different image reconstructions.
Quantitative evaluation of radiolabeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET scans may be used to monitor treatment response in patients with prostate cancer (PCa). To interpret longitudinal differences in PSMA uptake, the intrinsic variability of tracer uptake in PCa lesions needs to be defined. The aim of this study was to investigate the repeatability of quantitative PET/CT measurements using 18F-DCFPyL ([2-(3-(1-carboxy-5-[(6-18F-fluoro-pyridine-3-carbonyl)-amino]-pentyl)-ureido)-pentanedioic acid], a second-generation 18F-PSMA-ligand) in patients with PCa. Methods: Twelve patients with metastatic PCa were prospectively included, of whom 2 were excluded from final analyses. Patients received 2 whole-body 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT scans (median dose, 317 MBq; uptake time, 120 min) within a median of 4 d (range, 1-11 d). After semiautomatic (isocontour-based) tumor delineation, the following lesion-based metrics were derived: mean, peak, and maximum tumor-to-blood ratio; SUVmean, SUVpeak, and SUVmax normalized to body weight; tumor volume; and total lesion uptake (TLU). Additionally, patient-based total tumor volume (TTV) (sum of PSMA-positive tumor volumes) and total tumor burden (TTB) (sum of all lesion TLUs) were derived. Repeatability was analyzed using repeatability coefficients (RC) and intraclass correlation coefficients. Additionally, the effect of point-spread function (PSF) image reconstruction on the repeatability of uptake metrics was evaluated. Results: In total, 36 18F-DCFPyL PET-positive lesions were analyzed (≤5 lesions per patient). The RCs for mean, peak, and maximum tumor-to-blood ratio were 31.8%, 31.7%, and 37.3%, respectively. For SUVmean, SUVpeak, and SUVmax, the RCs were 24.4%, 25.3%, and 31.0%, respectively. All intraclass correlation coefficients were at least 0.97. Tumor volume delineations were quite repeatable, with an RC of 28.1% for individual lesion volumes and 17.0% for TTV. TTB had an RC of 23.2% and 33.4% when based on SUVmean and mean tumor-to-blood ratio, respectively. Small lesions (<4.2 cm3) had worse repeatability for volume measurements. The repeatability of SUVpeak, TLU, and all patient-level metrics was not affected by PSF reconstruction. Conclusion: 18F-DCFPyL uptake measurements are quite repeatable and can be used for clinical validation in future treatment response assessment studies. Patient-based TTV may be preferred for multicenter studies because its repeatability was both high and robust to different image reconstructions.
Authors: Jeffrey A Kolthammer; Kuan-Hao Su; Anu Grover; Manoj Narayanan; David W Jordan; Raymond F Muzic Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2014-06-23 Impact factor: 3.609
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: Bernard H E Jansen; Robin W Jansen; Maurits Wondergem; Sandra Srbljin; John M H de Klerk; Birgit I Lissenberg-Witte; André N Vis; Reindert J A van Moorselaar; Ronald Boellaard; Otto S Hoekstra; Daniela E Oprea-Lager Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-09-03 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Daniela E Oprea-Lager; Gem Kramer; Peter M van de Ven; Alfons J M van den Eertwegh; Reindert J A van Moorselaar; Patrick Schober; Otto S Hoekstra; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Ronald Boellaard Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-12-23 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: S P Rowe; M A Gorin; M E Allaf; K J Pienta; P T Tran; M G Pomper; A E Ross; S Y Cho Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2016-05-03 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Andres Kaalep; Terez Sera; Sjoerd Rijnsdorp; Maqsood Yaqub; Anne Talsma; Martin A Lodge; Ronald Boellaard Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-03-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Stefano Fanti; Karolien Goffin; Boris A Hadaschik; Ken Herrmann; Tobias Maurer; Steven MacLennan; Daniela E Oprea-Lager; Wim Jg Oyen; Olivier Rouvière; Nicolas Mottet; Anders Bjartell Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-07-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Rudolf A Werner; Bilêl Habacha; Susanne Lütje; Lena Bundschuh; Takahiro Higuchi; Philipp Hartrampf; Sebastian E Serfling; Thorsten Derlin; Constantin Lapa; Andreas K Buck; Markus Essler; Kenneth J Pienta; Mario A Eisenberger; Mark C Markowski; Laura Shinehouse; Rehab AbdAllah; Ali Salavati; Martin A Lodge; Martin G Pomper; Michael A Gorin; Ralph A Bundschuh; Steven P Rowe Journal: Mol Imaging Date: 2022-02-23 Impact factor: 4.488
Authors: Philipp E Hartrampf; Marieke Heinrich; Anna Katharina Seitz; Joachim Brumberg; Ioannis Sokolakis; Charis Kalogirou; Andreas Schirbel; Hubert Kübler; Andreas K Buck; Constantin Lapa; Markus Krebs Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Thomas T Poels; Floris A Vuijk; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei; Alexander L Vahrmeijer; Daniela E Oprea-Lager; Rutger-Jan Swijnenburg Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-12-07 Impact factor: 6.639