Justin Ferdinandus1,2, John Violet3, Shahneen Sandhu4,5, Rodney J Hicks2,5, Aravind S Ravi Kumar2,5, Amir Iravani2,5, Grace Kong2,5, Tim Akhurst2,5, Sue Ping Thang2, Declan G Murphy5,6, Scott Williams3,5, Michael S Hofman7,8. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. 2. Molecular Imaging and Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 3. Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 5. Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan Street, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 6. Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 7. Molecular Imaging and Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. michael.hofman@petermac.org. 8. Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan Street, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. michael.hofman@petermac.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We analysed quantitative biomarkers derived from both baseline whole-body imaging and blood serum to identify prognostic markers in patients treated within the lutetium-177 prostate-specific membrane antigen (LuPSMA) phase 2 trial. METHODS: PET image analysis was carried out using whole-body segmentation quantifying molecular tumour volume (SUV > 3 threshold for PSMA, SUV > liver+2sd for fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) including SUVmax and SUVmean. For baseline bone scans, EXINI bone scan index (BSI) was used to calculate the percentage of involved bone. Baseline alkaline phosphatase (ALP), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), prostate specific antigen (PSA) and PSA doubling time were also used in this analysis. We used univariate cox regression analysis and log-rank comparison with optimised cut-offs to find suitable biomarkers prognostic of overall survival from time of enrolment. RESULTS: This analysis identified FDG-positive tumour volume (FDGvol; HR 2.6; 95% CI, 1.4-4.8), mean intensity of PSMA-avid tumour uptake (PSMAmean; HR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.8-0.98), bone scan index (BSI; HR 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.4), ALP (HR 1.1; 95% CI, 1-1.2) and LDH (HR 1.2; 95% CI, 1-1.5) as biomarkers prognostic of overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to established biomarkers, both FDG and PSMA PET/CT parameters have prognostic significance for survival in men undergoing LuPSMA therapy.
PURPOSE: We analysed quantitative biomarkers derived from both baseline whole-body imaging and blood serum to identify prognostic markers in patients treated within the lutetium-177 prostate-specific membrane antigen (LuPSMA) phase 2 trial. METHODS: PET image analysis was carried out using whole-body segmentation quantifying molecular tumour volume (SUV > 3 threshold for PSMA, SUV > liver+2sd for fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) including SUVmax and SUVmean. For baseline bone scans, EXINI bone scan index (BSI) was used to calculate the percentage of involved bone. Baseline alkaline phosphatase (ALP), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), prostate specific antigen (PSA) and PSA doubling time were also used in this analysis. We used univariate cox regression analysis and log-rank comparison with optimised cut-offs to find suitable biomarkers prognostic of overall survival from time of enrolment. RESULTS: This analysis identified FDG-positive tumour volume (FDGvol; HR 2.6; 95% CI, 1.4-4.8), mean intensity of PSMA-avid tumour uptake (PSMAmean; HR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.8-0.98), bone scan index (BSI; HR 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.4), ALP (HR 1.1; 95% CI, 1-1.2) and LDH (HR 1.2; 95% CI, 1-1.5) as biomarkers prognostic of overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to established biomarkers, both FDG and PSMA PET/CT parameters have prognostic significance for survival in men undergoing LuPSMA therapy.
Authors: Jake Kendrick; Roslyn J Francis; Ghulam Mubashar Hassan; Pejman Rowshanfarzad; Jeremy S L Ong; Martin A Ebert Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-08-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Hojjat Ahmadzadehfar; Ralf Matern; Richard P Baum; Robert Seifert; Katharina Kessel; Martin Bögemann; Clemens Kratochwil; Hendrik Rathke; Harun Ilhan; Hanna Svirydenka; Mike Sathekge; Levent Kabasakal; Anna Yordanova; Francisco Osvaldo Garcia-Perez; Kalevi Kairemo; Masha Maharaj; Diana Paez; Irene Virgolini; Kambiz Rahbar Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Panagiotis J Vlachostergios; Muhammad Junaid Niaz; Myrto Skafida; Seyed Ali Mosallaie; Charlene Thomas; Paul J Christos; Joseph R Osborne; Ana M Molina; David M Nanus; Neil Harrison Bander; Scott T Tagawa Journal: Prostate Date: 2021-01-19 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Sinan Wang; Jun Li; Jun Hua; Yang Su; Denis R Beckford-Vera; Walter Zhao; Mayuri Jayaraman; Tony L Huynh; Ning Zhao; Yung-Hua Wang; Yangjie Huang; Fujun Qin; Sui Shen; Daniel Gioeli; Robert Dreicer; Renuka Sriram; Emily A Egusa; Jonathan Chou; Felix Y Feng; Rahul Aggarwal; Michael J Evans; Youngho Seo; Bin Liu; Robert R Flavell; Jiang He Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-12-08 Impact factor: 13.801
Authors: Sazan Rasul; Tim Wollenweber; Lucia Zisser; Elisabeth Kretschmer-Chott; Bernhard Grubmüller; Gero Kramer; Shahrokh F Shariat; Harald Eidherr; Markus Mitterhauser; Chrysoula Vraka; Werner Langsteger; Marcus Hacker; Alexander R Haug Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 6.639