Wolfgang P Fendler1,2, Justin Ferdinandus2, Johannes Czernin1, Matthias Eiber1,3, Robert R Flavell4, Spencer C Behr4, I-Wei K Wu4, Courtney Lawhn-Heath4, Miguel H Pampaloni4, Robert E Reiter5, Matthew B Rettig5,6, Jeannine Gartmann1, Vishnu Murthy4, Roger Slavik1, Peter R Carroll7, Ken Herrmann1,2, Jeremie Calais1, Thomas A Hope8. 1. Ahmanson Translational Theranostics Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, UCLA, Los Angeles, California. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), University Hospital Essen, Germany. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 4. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 5. Department of Urology, UCLA Medical Center, UCLA, Los Angeles, California. 6. Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, UCLA, and Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, VA Greater Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; and. 7. Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 8. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California thomas.hope@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) ligand PET induces management changes in patients with prostate cancer. We aim to better characterize the impact of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET (68Ga-PSMA PET) on management of recurrent prostate cancer in a large prospective cohort. Methods: We report management changes after 68Ga-PSMA PET, a secondary endpoint of a prospective multicenter trial in men with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. Pre-PET (Q1), post-PET (Q2), and posttreatment (Q3) questionnaires were sent to referring physicians recording site of recurrence and intended (Q1 to Q2 change) and implemented (Q3) therapeutic and diagnostic management. Results: Q1 and Q2 response was collected for 382 of 635 patients (60%, intended cohort), and Q1, Q2, and Q3 response was collected for 206 patients (32%, implemented cohort). An intended management change occurred in 260 of 382 (68%) patients. The intended change was considered major in 176 of 382 (46%) patients. Major changes occurred most often for patients with prostate-specific antigen of 0.5 to less than 2.0 ng/mL (81/147, 55%). By analysis of stage groups, management change was consistent with PET disease location, that is, a majority of major changes toward active surveillance (47%) for unknown disease site (103/382, 27%), toward local or focal therapy (56%) for locoregional disease (126/382, 33%), and toward systemic therapy (69% M1a; 43% M1b/c) for metastatic disease (153/382, 40%). According to Q3 responses, the intended management was implemented in 160 of 206 (78%) patients. In total, 150 intended diagnostic tests, mostly CT (n = 43, 29%) and bone scans or 18F-NaF PET (n = 52, 35%), were prevented by 68Ga-PSMA PET; 73 tests, mostly biopsies (n = 44, 60%) as requested by the study protocol, were triggered. Conclusion: According to referring physicians, sites of recurrence were clarified by 68Ga-PSMA PET, and disease localization translated into management changes in more than half of patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer.
Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) ligand PET induces management changes in patients with prostate cancer. We aim to better characterize the impact of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET (68Ga-PSMA PET) on management of recurrent prostate cancer in a large prospective cohort. Methods: We report management changes after 68Ga-PSMA PET, a secondary endpoint of a prospective multicenter trial in men with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. Pre-PET (Q1), post-PET (Q2), and posttreatment (Q3) questionnaires were sent to referring physicians recording site of recurrence and intended (Q1 to Q2 change) and implemented (Q3) therapeutic and diagnostic management. Results: Q1 and Q2 response was collected for 382 of 635 patients (60%, intended cohort), and Q1, Q2, and Q3 response was collected for 206 patients (32%, implemented cohort). An intended management change occurred in 260 of 382 (68%) patients. The intended change was considered major in 176 of 382 (46%) patients. Major changes occurred most often for patients with prostate-specific antigen of 0.5 to less than 2.0 ng/mL (81/147, 55%). By analysis of stage groups, management change was consistent with PET disease location, that is, a majority of major changes toward active surveillance (47%) for unknown disease site (103/382, 27%), toward local or focal therapy (56%) for locoregional disease (126/382, 33%), and toward systemic therapy (69% M1a; 43% M1b/c) for metastatic disease (153/382, 40%). According to Q3 responses, the intended management was implemented in 160 of 206 (78%) patients. In total, 150 intended diagnostic tests, mostly CT (n = 43, 29%) and bone scans or 18F-NaF PET (n = 52, 35%), were prevented by 68Ga-PSMA PET; 73 tests, mostly biopsies (n = 44, 60%) as requested by the study protocol, were triggered. Conclusion: According to referring physicians, sites of recurrence were clarified by 68Ga-PSMA PET, and disease localization translated into management changes in more than half of patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer.
Authors: Wolfgang P Fendler; Matthias Eiber; Mohsen Beheshti; Jamshed Bomanji; Francesco Ceci; Steven Cho; Frederik Giesel; Uwe Haberkorn; Thomas A Hope; Klaus Kopka; Bernd J Krause; Felix M Mottaghy; Heiko Schöder; John Sunderland; Simon Wan; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Stefano Fanti; Ken Herrmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Thomas A Hope; Rahul Aggarwal; Bryant Chee; Dora Tao; Kirsten L Greene; Matthew R Cooperberg; Felix Feng; Albert Chang; Charles J Ryan; Eric J Small; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Philip Cornford; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Erik Briers; Maria De Santis; Tobias Gross; Ann M Henry; Steven Joniau; Thomas B Lam; Malcolm D Mason; Henk G van der Poel; Theo H van der Kwast; Olivier Rouvière; Thomas Wiegel; Nicolas Mottet Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 20.096
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: Michael S Hofman; Declan G Murphy; Scott G Williams; Tatenda Nzenza; Alan Herschtal; Richard De Abreu Lourenco; Dale L Bailey; Ray Budd; Rodney J Hicks; Roslyn J Francis; Nathan Lawrentschuk Journal: BJU Int Date: 2018-06-03 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Julian Müller; Daniela A Ferraro; Urs J Muehlematter; Helena I Garcia Schüler; Sarah Kedzia; Daniel Eberli; Matthias Guckenberger; Stephanie G C Kroeze; Tullio Sulser; Daniel M Schmid; Aurelius Omlin; Alexander Müller; Thomas Zilli; Hubert John; Helmut Kranzbuehler; Philipp A Kaufmann; Gustav K von Schulthess; Irene A Burger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-11-28 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Bruce E Hillner; Barry A Siegel; Dawei Liu; Anthony F Shields; Ilana F Gareen; Lucy Hanna; Sharon Hartson Stine; R Edward Coleman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-03-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jeremie Calais; Wolfgang P Fendler; Matthias Eiber; Jeannine Gartmann; Fang-I Chu; Nicholas G Nickols; Robert E Reiter; Matthew B Rettig; Leonard S Marks; Thomas E Ahlering; Linda M Huynh; Roger Slavik; Pawan Gupta; Andrew Quon; Martin S Allen-Auerbach; Johannes Czernin; Ken Herrmann Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jeremie Calais; Francesco Ceci; Matthias Eiber; Thomas A Hope; Michael S Hofman; Christoph Rischpler; Tore Bach-Gansmo; Cristina Nanni; Bital Savir-Baruch; David Elashoff; Tristan Grogan; Magnus Dahlbom; Roger Slavik; Jeannine Gartmann; Kathleen Nguyen; Vincent Lok; Hossein Jadvar; Amar U Kishan; Matthew B Rettig; Robert E Reiter; Wolfgang P Fendler; Johannes Czernin Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2019-07-30 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Lukas Kessler; Justin Ferdinandus; Nader Hirmas; Sebastian Bauer; Uta Dirksen; Fadi Zarrad; Michael Nader; Michal Chodyla; Aleksandar Milosevic; Lale Umutlu; Martin Schuler; Lars Erik Podleska; Hans-Ulrich Schildhaus; Wolfgang P Fendler; Rainer Hamacher Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-04-30 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Asim Afaq; Heather Payne; Reena Davda; John Hines; Gary J R Cook; Marie Meagher; Dimitrios Priftakis; Victoria S Warbey; Anand Kelkar; Clement Orczyk; Anita Mitra; Sarah Needleman; Michael Ferris; Greg Mullen; Jamshed Bomanji Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-03-19 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Fabio Zattoni; Isabel Heidegger; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Alexander Kretschmer; Giancarlo Marra; Alessandro Magli; Felix Preisser; Derya Tilki; Igor Tsaur; Massimo Valerio; Roderick van den Bergh; Claudia Kesch; Francesco Ceci; Christian Fankhauser; Giorgio Gandaglia Journal: Front Surg Date: 2021-07-09