E Lopci1, G Lughezzani2,3, A Castello1, P Colombo4, P Casale5, A Saita5, N M Buffi5,6, G Guazzoni5,6, A Chiti1,6, M Lazzeri5. 1. Nuclear-Medicine, Humanitas Clinical and Research Hospital-IRCCS, Rozzano, MI, Italy. 2. Department of Urology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Hospital-IRCCS, Via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, MI, Italy. giovanni.lughezzani@humanitas.it. 3. Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy. giovanni.lughezzani@humanitas.it. 4. Pathology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Hospital-IRCCS, Rozzano, MI, Italy. 5. Department of Urology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Hospital-IRCCS, Via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, MI, Italy. 6. Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of 68Ga-PSMA PET/TC with PRI-MUS (prostate risk identification using micro-ultrasound) in the primary diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: From September till December 2018, we prospectively enrolled 25 candidates to 68Ga-PSMA PET/TRUS (transrectal ultrasound) fusion biopsy and compared them with PRI-MUS. This included patients with persistently elevated PSA and/or PHI (prostate health index) suspicious for PCa, negative digital rectal examination, with either negative or contraindication to mpMRI, and at least one negative biopsy. The diagnostic performance of the two modalities was calculated based on pathology results. RESULTS: Overall, 20 patients were addressed to 68Ga-PSMA PET/TRUS fusion biopsy. Mean SUVmax and SUVratio for PCa lesions resulted significantly higher than in benign lesions (p = 0.041 and 0.011, respectively). Using optimal cut-off points, 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT demonstrated an overall accuracy of 83% for SUVmax ≥ 5.4 and 94% for SUVratio ≥ 2.2 in the detection of clinically significant PCa (GS ≥ 7). On counterpart, PRI-MUS results were: score 3 in nine patients (45%), score 4 in ten patients (50%), and one patient with score 5. PRI-MUS score 4 and 5 demonstrated an overall accuracy of 61% in detecting clinically significant PCa. CONCLUSION: In this highly-selected patient population, in comparison to PRI-MUS, 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT shows a higher diagnostic performance.
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of 68Ga-PSMA PET/TC with PRI-MUS (prostate risk identification using micro-ultrasound) in the primary diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: From September till December 2018, we prospectively enrolled 25 candidates to 68Ga-PSMA PET/TRUS (transrectal ultrasound) fusion biopsy and compared them with PRI-MUS. This included patients with persistently elevated PSA and/or PHI (prostate health index) suspicious for PCa, negative digital rectal examination, with either negative or contraindication to mpMRI, and at least one negative biopsy. The diagnostic performance of the two modalities was calculated based on pathology results. RESULTS: Overall, 20 patients were addressed to 68Ga-PSMA PET/TRUS fusion biopsy. Mean SUVmax and SUVratio for PCa lesions resulted significantly higher than in benign lesions (p = 0.041 and 0.011, respectively). Using optimal cut-off points, 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT demonstrated an overall accuracy of 83% for SUVmax ≥ 5.4 and 94% for SUVratio ≥ 2.2 in the detection of clinically significant PCa (GS ≥ 7). On counterpart, PRI-MUS results were: score 3 in nine patients (45%), score 4 in ten patients (50%), and one patient with score 5. PRI-MUS score 4 and 5 demonstrated an overall accuracy of 61% in detecting clinically significant PCa. CONCLUSION: In this highly-selected patient population, in comparison to PRI-MUS, 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT shows a higher diagnostic performance.
Entities:
Keywords:
68Ga-PSMA PET/CT; Diagnostic accuracy; Fusion biopsy; PRI-MUS; Prostate cancer
Authors: Jonathan I Epstein; Lars Egevad; Mahul B Amin; Brett Delahunt; John R Srigley; Peter A Humphrey Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Massimo Lazzeri; Vittorio Fasulo; Giovanni Lughezzani; Alessio Benetti; Giulia Soldà; Rosanna Asselta; Ilaria De Simone; Marco Paciotti; Pier Paolo Avolio; Roberto Contieri; Cesare Saitta; Alberto Saita; Rodolfo Hurle; Giorgio Guazzoni; Nicolò Maria Buffi; Paolo Casale Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-09-06 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Daniel Eberli; Irene A Burger; Daniela A Ferraro; Anton S Becker; Benedikt Kranzbühler; Iliana Mebert; Anka Baltensperger; Konstantinos G Zeimpekis; Hannes Grünig; Michael Messerli; Niels J Rupp; Jan H Rueschoff; Ashkan Mortezavi; Olivio F Donati; Marcelo T Sapienza Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-02-23 Impact factor: 9.236