Chen Liu1, Teli Liu1, Zhongyi Zhang2, Ning Zhang3, Peng Du3, Yong Yang3, Yiqiang Liu4, Wei Yu5, Nan Li1, Michael A Gorin6, Steven P Rowe7, Hua Zhu8, Kun Yan9, Zhi Yang8. 1. Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Nuclear Medicine, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, China. 2. Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Ultrasonography, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, China. 3. Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Urology, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, China. 4. Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Pathology, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, China. 5. Department of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China; and. 6. The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, and The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 7. The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, and The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland pekyz@163.com srowe8@jhmi.edu zhuhuananjing@163.com ydbz@vip.sina.com. 8. Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Nuclear Medicine, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, China pekyz@163.com srowe8@jhmi.edu zhuhuananjing@163.com ydbz@vip.sina.com. 9. Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Ultrasonography, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, China pekyz@163.com srowe8@jhmi.edu zhuhuananjing@163.com ydbz@vip.sina.com.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility and diagnostic efficacy of 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT combined with PET/ultrasound-guided biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: In total, 31 patients with a previously negative prostate biopsy but persistent elevated serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were imaged with a 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT ligand before undergoing repeat prostate biopsy. On the basis of the proposed Prostate Cancer Molecular Imaging Standardized Evaluation criteria, 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT results were interpreted as negative (molecular-imaging-for-PSMA expression score [miPSMA-ES] of 0-1) or positive (miPSMA-ES of 2-3). All patients underwent standard template systematic biopsy with up to 4 additional PET/ultrasound-guided biopsy cores. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT were determined. In addition, the correlation between the miPSMA-ES and the detection rate of PCa was also analyzed. Univariate logistic regression models were established using 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT semiquantitative analysis parameters to predict the outcome of repeat prostate biopsy. Results: The median age of patients was 65 y (range, 53-81 y), and the median PSA level was 18.0 ng/mL (range, 5.48-49.77 ng/mL). PCa was detected in 15 of 31 patients (48.4%), and 12 of 31 patients (38.7%) had clinically significant PCa (csPCa). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in the diagnosis of csPCa were 100.0%, 68.4%, 66.7%, 100.0%, and 80.6%, respectively. The detection rate of PCa increased with the increase in miPSMA-ES. The detection rates of csPCa in the miPSMA-ES 0-1, 2, and 3 groups were 0%, 54.5%, and 85.7%, respectively. Semiquantitative analysis of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT images showed that predictive models based on the SUVmax of prostate lesion, tumor-to-normal-prostate background SUVmax, and tumor-to-normal-liver background SUVmax could effectively predict csPCa; area under the curves were 0.930, 0.877, and 0.956, respectively. Conclusion: This study preliminarily confirmed that 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT imaging, combined with PET/ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy, can effectively detect csPCa. Prebiopsy 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT had predictive value for csPCa in the studied patient population.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility and diagnostic efficacy of 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT combined with PET/ultrasound-guided biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: In total, 31 patients with a previously negative prostate biopsy but persistent elevated serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were imaged with a 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT ligand before undergoing repeat prostate biopsy. On the basis of the proposed Prostate Cancer Molecular Imaging Standardized Evaluation criteria, 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT results were interpreted as negative (molecular-imaging-for-PSMA expression score [miPSMA-ES] of 0-1) or positive (miPSMA-ES of 2-3). All patients underwent standard template systematic biopsy with up to 4 additional PET/ultrasound-guided biopsy cores. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT were determined. In addition, the correlation between the miPSMA-ES and the detection rate of PCa was also analyzed. Univariate logistic regression models were established using 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT semiquantitative analysis parameters to predict the outcome of repeat prostate biopsy. Results: The median age of patients was 65 y (range, 53-81 y), and the median PSA level was 18.0 ng/mL (range, 5.48-49.77 ng/mL). PCa was detected in 15 of 31 patients (48.4%), and 12 of 31 patients (38.7%) had clinically significant PCa (csPCa). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in the diagnosis of csPCa were 100.0%, 68.4%, 66.7%, 100.0%, and 80.6%, respectively. The detection rate of PCa increased with the increase in miPSMA-ES. The detection rates of csPCa in the miPSMA-ES 0-1, 2, and 3 groups were 0%, 54.5%, and 85.7%, respectively. Semiquantitative analysis of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT images showed that predictive models based on the SUVmax of prostate lesion, tumor-to-normal-prostate background SUVmax, and tumor-to-normal-liver background SUVmax could effectively predict csPCa; area under the curves were 0.930, 0.877, and 0.956, respectively. Conclusion: This study preliminarily confirmed that 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT imaging, combined with PET/ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy, can effectively detect csPCa. Prebiopsy 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT had predictive value for csPCa in the studied patient population.
Authors: Stefan A Koerber; Maximilian T Utzinger; Clemens Kratochwil; Claudia Kesch; Matthias F Haefner; Sonja Katayama; Walter Mier; Andrei H Iagaru; Klaus Herfarth; Uwe Haberkorn; Juergen Debus; Frederik L Giesel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Kay M Westenfelder; Beatrice Lentes; Julia Rackerseder; Nassir Navab; Jürgen E Gschwend; Matthias Eiber; Tobias Maurer Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Matthias Eiber; Ken Herrmann; Jeremie Calais; Boris Hadaschik; Frederik L Giesel; Markus Hartenbach; Thomas Hope; Robert Reiter; Tobias Maurer; Wolfgang A Weber; Wolfgang P Fendler Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Martina Benešová; Martin Schäfer; Ulrike Bauder-Wüst; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Clemens Kratochwil; Walter Mier; Uwe Haberkorn; Klaus Kopka; Matthias Eder Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Olivier Wegelin; Harm H E van Melick; Lotty Hooft; J L H Ruud Bosch; Hans B Reitsma; Jelle O Barentsz; Diederik M Somford Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Wolfgang P Fendler; Dorothea F Schmidt; Vera Wenter; Kolja M Thierfelder; Christian Zach; Christian Stief; Peter Bartenstein; Thomas Kirchner; Franz J Gildehaus; Christian Gratzke; Claudius Faber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Constantinos Zamboglou; Vanessa Drendel; Cordula A Jilg; Hans C Rischke; Teresa I Beck; Wolfgang Schultze-Seemann; Tobias Krauss; Michael Mix; Florian Schiller; Ulrich Wetterauer; Martin Werner; Mathias Langer; Michael Bock; Philipp T Meyer; Anca L Grosu Journal: Theranostics Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 11.556
Authors: Dejan Kostyszyn; Tobias Fechter; Nico Bartl; Anca L Grosu; Christian Gratzke; August Sigle; Michael Mix; Juri Ruf; Thomas F Fassbender; Selina Kiefer; Alisa S Bettermann; Nils H Nicolay; Simon Spohn; Maria U Kramer; Peter Bronsert; Hongqian Guo; Xuefeng Qiu; Feng Wang; Christoph Henkenberens; Rudolf A Werner; Dimos Baltas; Philipp T Meyer; Thorsten Derlin; Mengxia Chen; Constantinos Zamboglou Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-10-30 Impact factor: 10.057