N-S Schmidt-Hegemann1, S G C Kroeze2, C Henkenberens3, M M E Vogel4,5, S Kirste6, J Becker7, I A Burger8, T Derlin9, P Bartenstein10, M Eiber11, M Mix12, Ch la Fougère13,14,15, A C Müller7, A L Grosu6,16, S E Combs4,5,17, H Christiansen3, M Guckenberger2, C Belka18,17. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. Nina-Sophie.Hegemann@med.uni-muenchen.de. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Department of Radiotherapy and Special Oncology, Medical School Hannover, Hannover, Germany. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 5. Institute of Radiation Medicine (IRM), Department of Radiation Sciences, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Unterschleissheim, Munich, Germany. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. 8. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. 9. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. 10. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital LMU Munich, Munich, Germany. 11. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany. 12. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany. 13. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. 14. German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. 15. Cluster of Excellence iFIT (EXC 2180) "Image Guided and Functionally Instructed Tumor Therapies", University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. 16. German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 17. German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany. 18. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Approximately 40-70% of biochemically persistent or recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) patients after radical prostatectomy (RPE) are oligo-metastatic in 68gallium-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (68Ga-PSMA PET). Those lesions are frequently located outside the prostate bed, and therefore not cured by the current standards of care like external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) of the prostatic fossa. This retrospective study analyzes the influence of oligo-metastases' site on outcome after metastasis-directed radiotherapy (MDR). METHODS: Retrospectively, 359 patients with PET-positive PCa recurrences after RPE were analyzed. Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) (prostate-specific antigen (PSA) < post-radiotherapy nadir + 0.2 ng/mL) was assessed using Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: All patients were initially clinically without distant metastases (cM0). Seventy-five patients had local recurrence within the prostatic fossa, 32 patients had pelvic nodal plus local recurrence, 117 patients had pelvic nodal recurrence, 51 patients had paraaortic lymph node metastases with/without locoregional recurrence, and 84 patients had bone or visceral metastases with/without locoregional recurrence. Median PSA before MDR was 1.2 ng/mL (range, 0.04-47.5). Additive androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was given in 35% (125/359) of patients. Median PSA nadir after MDR was 0.23 ng/mL (range, < 0.03-18.30). After a median follow-up of 16 months (1-57), 239/351 (68%) patients had no biochemical recurrence. Patients with distant lymph node and/or distant metastases, the so-called oligo-body cohort, had an overall in-field control of 90/98 (91%) but at the same time, an ex-field progress of 44/96 (46%). In comparison, an ex-field progress was detected in 28/154 (18%) patients with local and/or pelvic nodal recurrence (oligo-pelvis group). Compared with the oligo-pelvis group, there was a significantly lower BRFS in oligo-body patients at the last follow-up. CONCLUSION: Overall, BRFS was dependent on patterns of metastatic disease. Thus, MDR of PSMA PET-positive oligo-metastases can be offered considering that about one-third of the patients progressed within a median follow-up of 16 months.
PURPOSE: Approximately 40-70% of biochemically persistent or recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) patients after radical prostatectomy (RPE) are oligo-metastatic in 68gallium-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (68Ga-PSMA PET). Those lesions are frequently located outside the prostate bed, and therefore not cured by the current standards of care like external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) of the prostatic fossa. This retrospective study analyzes the influence of oligo-metastases' site on outcome after metastasis-directed radiotherapy (MDR). METHODS: Retrospectively, 359 patients with PET-positive PCa recurrences after RPE were analyzed. Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) (prostate-specific antigen (PSA) < post-radiotherapy nadir + 0.2 ng/mL) was assessed using Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: All patients were initially clinically without distant metastases (cM0). Seventy-five patients had local recurrence within the prostatic fossa, 32 patients had pelvic nodal plus local recurrence, 117 patients had pelvic nodal recurrence, 51 patients had paraaortic lymph node metastases with/without locoregional recurrence, and 84 patients had bone or visceral metastases with/without locoregional recurrence. Median PSA before MDR was 1.2 ng/mL (range, 0.04-47.5). Additive androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was given in 35% (125/359) of patients. Median PSA nadir after MDR was 0.23 ng/mL (range, < 0.03-18.30). After a median follow-up of 16 months (1-57), 239/351 (68%) patients had no biochemical recurrence. Patients with distant lymph node and/or distant metastases, the so-called oligo-body cohort, had an overall in-field control of 90/98 (91%) but at the same time, an ex-field progress of 44/96 (46%). In comparison, an ex-field progress was detected in 28/154 (18%) patients with local and/or pelvic nodal recurrence (oligo-pelvis group). Compared with the oligo-pelvis group, there was a significantly lower BRFS in oligo-body patients at the last follow-up. CONCLUSION: Overall, BRFS was dependent on patterns of metastatic disease. Thus, MDR of PSMA PET-positive oligo-metastases can be offered considering that about one-third of the patients progressed within a median follow-up of 16 months.
Authors: Hossein Jadvar; Jeremie Calais; Stefano Fanti; Felix Feng; Kirsten L Greene; James L Gulley; Michael Hofman; Bridget F Koontz; Daniel W Lin; Michael J Morris; Steve P Rowe; Trevor J Royce; Simpa Salami; Bital Savir-Baruch; Sandy Srinivas; Thomas A Hope Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-09-30 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Paul Rogowski; Mack Roach; Nina-Sophie Schmidt-Hegemann; Christian Trapp; Rieke von Bestenbostel; Run Shi; Alexander Buchner; Christian Stief; Claus Belka; Minglun Li Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-03-09 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Shafak Aluwini; Daniela E Oprea-Lager; Hilda de Barros; Niven Mehra; Herman Stoevelaar; Derya Yakar; Henk van der Poel Journal: BJUI Compass Date: 2021-02-03
Authors: Bastiaan M Privé; Marcel J R Janssen; Inge M van Oort; Constantijn H J Muselaers; Marianne A Jonker; Michel de Groot; Niven Mehra; J Fred Verzijlbergen; Tom W J Scheenen; Patrik Zámecnik; Jelle O Barentsz; Martin Gotthardt; Walter Noordzij; Wouter V Vogel; Andries M Bergman; Henk G van der Poel; André N Vis; Daniela E Oprea-Lager; Winald R Gerritsen; J Alfred Witjes; James Nagarajah Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-09-14 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Marco M E Vogel; Sabrina Dewes; Eva K Sage; Michal Devecka; Jürgen E Gschwend; Kilian Schiller; Stephanie E Combs Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2021-01-27 Impact factor: 3.621