Michael A Gorin1, Steven P Rowe2, Mark C Markowski3, Ramy Sedhom3, Wei Fu4, Javaughn Corey R Gray3, Mario A Eisenberger3, Martin G Pomper2, Kenneth J Pienta1. 1. The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. The Russel H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Department of Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Maryland. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prostate specific membrane antigen targeted 18F-DCFPyL positron emission tomography/computerized tomography may offer superior image quality and sensitivity for the detection of biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. We examined the association of Gleason sum, serum prostate specific antigen and prostate specific antigen doubling time with any detectable and pelvic confined disease in patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 108 patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy who underwent prostate specific membrane antigen targeted 18F-DCFPyL positron emission tomography/computerized tomography were analyzed. Data were collected on positive positron emission tomography findings as well as pelvic confined disease. Associations between Gleason sum, prostate specific antigen and prostate specific antigen doubling time were retrospectively explored. RESULTS: Serum prostate specific antigen was associated with positive prostate specific membrane antigen targeted imaging as continuous (OR 3.08, 95% CI 1.60-7.95, p=0.005) and categorical values (ie prostate specific antigen greater than 2.0 to 5.0 vs 0.5 ng/ml or less, OR 16.92, 95% CI 3.13-315.81, p=0.008). No relationship between Gleason sum or prostate specific antigen doubling time with overall positive imaging was observed. Patients with a prostate specific antigen greater than 2.0 to 5.0 ng/ml were significantly less likely to be diagnosed with pelvic confined disease compared with the 0.5 ng/ml or less subgroup (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06-0.69, p=0.013). A prostate specific antigen doubling time of 9 months or more (OR 4.20, 95% CI 1.57-11.89, p=0.005) or prostate specific antigen doubling time of 12 months or more (OR 3.03, 95% CI 1.12-8.76, p=0.033) was significantly associated with pelvic confined disease. No relationship between Gleason sum and pelvic confined disease was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Absolute prostate specific antigen was positively associated with the presence of findings on prostate specific membrane antigen targeted imaging and negatively associated with pelvic confined disease. Prostate specific antigen doubling time did not predict for overall disease detection, but long prostate specific antigen doubling times were associated with pelvic confined prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: Prostate specific membrane antigen targeted 18F-DCFPyL positron emission tomography/computerized tomography may offer superior image quality and sensitivity for the detection of biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. We examined the association of Gleason sum, serum prostate specific antigen and prostate specific antigen doubling time with any detectable and pelvic confined disease in patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 108 patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy who underwent prostate specific membrane antigen targeted 18F-DCFPyL positron emission tomography/computerized tomography were analyzed. Data were collected on positive positron emission tomography findings as well as pelvic confined disease. Associations between Gleason sum, prostate specific antigen and prostate specific antigen doubling time were retrospectively explored. RESULTS: Serum prostate specific antigen was associated with positive prostate specific membrane antigen targeted imaging as continuous (OR 3.08, 95% CI 1.60-7.95, p=0.005) and categorical values (ie prostate specific antigen greater than 2.0 to 5.0 vs 0.5 ng/ml or less, OR 16.92, 95% CI 3.13-315.81, p=0.008). No relationship between Gleason sum or prostate specific antigen doubling time with overall positive imaging was observed. Patients with a prostate specific antigen greater than 2.0 to 5.0 ng/ml were significantly less likely to be diagnosed with pelvic confined disease compared with the 0.5 ng/ml or less subgroup (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06-0.69, p=0.013). A prostate specific antigen doubling time of 9 months or more (OR 4.20, 95% CI 1.57-11.89, p=0.005) or prostate specific antigen doubling time of 12 months or more (OR 3.03, 95% CI 1.12-8.76, p=0.033) was significantly associated with pelvic confined disease. No relationship between Gleason sum and pelvic confined disease was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Absolute prostate specific antigen was positively associated with the presence of findings on prostate specific membrane antigen targeted imaging and negatively associated with pelvic confined disease. Prostate specific antigen doubling time did not predict for overall disease detection, but long prostate specific antigen doubling times were associated with pelvic confined prostate cancer.
Authors: Marlon Perera; Nathan Papa; Matthew Roberts; Michael Williams; Cristian Udovicich; Ian Vela; Daniel Christidis; Damien Bolton; Michael S Hofman; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Declan G Murphy Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: S Hijazi; B Meller; C Leitsmann; A Strauss; J Meller; C O Ritter; J Lotz; H-U Schildhaus; L Trojan; C O Sahlmann Journal: Prostate Date: 2015-09-10 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Pim J van Leeuwen; Phillip Stricker; George Hruby; Andrew Kneebone; Francis Ting; Ben Thompson; Quoc Nguyen; Bao Ho; Louise Emmett Journal: BJU Int Date: 2016-01-24 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Joshua J Morigi; Phillip D Stricker; Pim J van Leeuwen; Reuben Tang; Bao Ho; Quoc Nguyen; George Hruby; Gerald Fogarty; Raj Jagavkar; Andrew Kneebone; Adam Hickey; Stefano Fanti; Lisa Tarlinton; Louise Emmett Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Francesco Ceci; Lorenzo Bianchi; Marco Borghesi; Giulia Polverari; Andrea Farolfi; Alberto Briganti; Riccardo Schiavina; Eugenio Brunocilla; Paolo Castellucci; Stefano Fanti Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-09-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Andrew J Stephenson; Shahrokh F Shariat; Michael J Zelefsky; Michael W Kattan; E Brian Butler; Bin S Teh; Eric A Klein; Patrick A Kupelian; Claus G Roehrborn; David A Pistenmaa; Heather D Pacholke; Stanley L Liauw; Matthew S Katz; Steven A Leibel; Peter T Scardino; Kevin M Slawin Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-03-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Steven P Rowe; Scott P Campbell; Margarita Mana-Ay; Zsolt Szabo; Mohamad E Allaf; Kenneth J Pienta; Martin G Pomper; Ashley E Ross; Michael A Gorin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-06-14 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Katherine A Zukotynski; Urban Emmenegger; Sebastien Hotte; Anil Kapoor; Wei Fu; Amanda L Blackford; John Valliant; François Bénard; Chun K Kim; Mark C Markowski; Mario A Eisenberger; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Kenneth J Pienta; Michael A Gorin; Matthew Lubanovic; Jihyun Kim; Martin G Pomper; Steve Y Cho; Steven P Rowe Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Liang Dong; Yun Su; Yinjie Zhu; Mark C Markowski; Mei Xin; Michael A Gorin; Baijun Dong; Jiahua Pan; Martin G Pomper; Jianjun Liu; Kenneth J Pienta; Wei Xue; Steven P Rowe Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 10.057