Robert Seifert1,2,3,4, Ken Herrmann2,3,4, Jens Kleesiek3,5, Michael Schäfers1,4, Vijay Shah6, Zhoubing Xu7, Guillaume Chabin7, Sasa Grbic7, Bruce Spottiswoode6, Kambiz Rahbar8,4. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. 3. German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Essen, Germany. 4. West German Cancer Center, Muenster and Essen, Germany. 5. Division of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany. 6. Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc., Knoxville, Tennessee; and. 7. Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey. 8. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany rahbar@uni-muenster.de.
Abstract
Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeting PET imaging is becoming the reference standard for prostate cancer staging, especially in advanced disease. Yet, the implications of PSMA PET-derived whole-body tumor volume for overall survival are poorly elucidated to date. This might be because semiautomated quantification of whole-body tumor volume as a PSMA PET biomarker is an unmet clinical challenge. Therefore, in the present study we propose and evaluate a software that enables the semiautomated quantification of PSMA PET biomarkers such as whole-body tumor volume. Methods: The proposed quantification is implemented as a research prototype. PSMA-accumulating foci were automatically segmented by a percental threshold (50% of local SUVmax). Neural networks were trained to segment organs in PET/CT acquisitions (training CTs: 8,632, validation CTs: 53). Thereby, PSMA foci within organs of physiologic PSMA uptake were semiautomatically excluded from the analysis. Pretherapeutic PSMA PET/CTs of 40 consecutive patients treated with 177Lu-PSMA-617 were evaluated in this analysis. The whole-body tumor volume (PSMATV50), SUVmax, SUVmean, and other whole-body imaging biomarkers were calculated for each patient. Semiautomatically derived results were compared with manual readings in a subcohort (by 1 nuclear medicine physician). Additionally, an interobserver evaluation of the semiautomated approach was performed in a subcohort (by 2 nuclear medicine physicians). Results: Manually and semiautomatically derived PSMA metrics were highly correlated (PSMATV50: R 2 = 1.000, P < 0.001; SUVmax: R 2 = 0.988, P < 0.001). The interobserver agreement of the semiautomated workflow was also high (PSMATV50: R 2 = 1.000, P < 0.001, interclass correlation coefficient = 1.000; SUVmax: R 2 = 0.988, P < 0.001, interclass correlation coefficient = 0.997). PSMATV50 (ml) was a significant predictor of overall survival (hazard ratio: 1.004; 95% confidence interval: 1.001-1.006, P = 0.002) and remained so in a multivariate regression including other biomarkers (hazard ratio: 1.004; 95% confidence interval: 1.001-1.006 P = 0.004). Conclusion: PSMATV50 is a promising PSMA PET biomarker that is reproducible and easily quantified by the proposed semiautomated software. Moreover, PSMATV50 is a significant predictor of overall survival in patients with advanced prostate cancer who receive 177Lu-PSMA-617 therapy.
Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeting PET imaging is becoming the reference standard for prostate cancer staging, especially in advanced disease. Yet, the implications of PSMA PET-derived whole-body tumor volume for overall survival are poorly elucidated to date. This might be because semiautomated quantification of whole-body tumor volume as a PSMA PET biomarker is an unmet clinical challenge. Therefore, in the present study we propose and evaluate a software that enables the semiautomated quantification of PSMA PET biomarkers such as whole-body tumor volume. Methods: The proposed quantification is implemented as a research prototype. PSMA-accumulating foci were automatically segmented by a percental threshold (50% of local SUVmax). Neural networks were trained to segment organs in PET/CT acquisitions (training CTs: 8,632, validation CTs: 53). Thereby, PSMA foci within organs of physiologic PSMA uptake were semiautomatically excluded from the analysis. Pretherapeutic PSMA PET/CTs of 40 consecutive patients treated with 177Lu-PSMA-617 were evaluated in this analysis. The whole-body tumor volume (PSMATV50), SUVmax, SUVmean, and other whole-body imaging biomarkers were calculated for each patient. Semiautomatically derived results were compared with manual readings in a subcohort (by 1 nuclear medicine physician). Additionally, an interobserver evaluation of the semiautomated approach was performed in a subcohort (by 2 nuclear medicine physicians). Results: Manually and semiautomatically derived PSMA metrics were highly correlated (PSMATV50: R 2 = 1.000, P < 0.001; SUVmax: R 2 = 0.988, P < 0.001). The interobserver agreement of the semiautomated workflow was also high (PSMATV50: R 2 = 1.000, P < 0.001, interclass correlation coefficient = 1.000; SUVmax: R 2 = 0.988, P < 0.001, interclass correlation coefficient = 0.997). PSMATV50 (ml) was a significant predictor of overall survival (hazard ratio: 1.004; 95% confidence interval: 1.001-1.006, P = 0.002) and remained so in a multivariate regression including other biomarkers (hazard ratio: 1.004; 95% confidence interval: 1.001-1.006 P = 0.004). Conclusion: PSMATV50 is a promising PSMA PET biomarker that is reproducible and easily quantified by the proposed semiautomated software. Moreover, PSMATV50 is a significant predictor of overall survival in patients with advanced prostate cancer who receive 177Lu-PSMA-617 therapy.
Authors: Hasan Sari; Clemens Mingels; Ian Alberts; Jicun Hu; Dorothee Buesser; Vijay Shah; Robin Schepers; Patrik Caluori; Vladimir Panin; Maurizio Conti; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Kuangyu Shi; Lars Eriksson; Axel Rominger; Paul Cumming Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-01-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Esben Andreas Carlsen; Camilla Bardram Johnbeck; Mathias Loft; Andreas Pfeifer; Peter Oturai; Seppo W Langer; Ulrich Knigge; Claes Nøhr Ladefoged; Andreas Kjaer Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Kerstin Michalski; Claudius Klein; Tonio Brueggemann; Philipp T Meyer; Cordula Annette Jilg; Juri Ruf Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Robert Seifert; Konstantin Seitzer; Ken Herrmann; Katharina Kessel; Michael Schäfers; Jens Kleesiek; Matthias Weckesser; Martin Boegemann; Kambiz Rahbar Journal: Theranostics Date: 2020-06-19 Impact factor: 11.556
Authors: Panagiotis J Vlachostergios; Muhammad Junaid Niaz; Michael Sun; Seyed Ali Mosallaie; Charlene Thomas; Paul J Christos; Joseph R Osborne; Ana M Molina; David M Nanus; Neil H Bander; Scott T Tagawa Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-02-18 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Felix Kind; Thomas F Fassbender; Geoffroy Andrieux; Melanie Boerries; Philipp T Meyer; Juri Ruf Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-12-29 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Wolfgang Roll; Matthias Weckesser; Robert Seifert; Lisa Bodei; Kambiz Rahbar Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-04-26 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Lena M Mittlmeier; Matthias Brendel; Leonie Beyer; Nathalie L Albert; Andrei Todica; Mathias J Zacherl; Vera Wenter; Annika Herlemann; Alexander Kretschmer; Stephan T Ledderose; Nina-Sophie Schmidt-Hegemann; Wolfgang G Kunz; Jens Ricke; Peter Bartenstein; Harun Ilhan; Marcus Unterrainer Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Robert Seifert; Katharina Kessel; Katrin Schlack; Matthias Weckesser; David Kersting; Konstantin E Seitzer; Manuel Weber; Martin Bögemann; Kambiz Rahbar Journal: Theranostics Date: 2021-07-13 Impact factor: 11.556