Andrei Gafita1, Wolfgang P Fendler2, Wang Hui3, Shahneen Sandhu4, Manuel Weber2, Rouzbeh Esfandiari5, Jeremie Calais6, Isabel Rauscher3, Hendrik Rathke7, Robert Tauber8, Ebrahim S Delpassand5, Wolfgang A Weber3, Ken Herrmann2, Johannes Czernin6, Matthias Eiber3, Michael S Hofman9. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technical University Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany. Electronic address: andrei.gafita@tum.de. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK)-University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Technical University Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 5. Excel Diagnostics and Nuclear Oncology Center, Houston, TX, USA. 6. Ahmanson Translational Theranostics Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 7. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. 8. Department of Urology, Technical University Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany. 9. Department of Molecular Imaging and Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Abstract
The 177Lu-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (LuPSMA) radionuclide therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer is under investigation in a phase III trial (VISION: NCT03511664). However, patients with diffuse bone involvement, diagnosed with a "superscan" by bone scintigraphy at baseline, were excluded due to a lack of efficacy and safety data. We therefore aimed to investigate the feasibility of LuPSMA in patients with diffuse bone marrow involvement on baseline PSMA-targeted positron emission tomography. The primary end points were prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 [PCWG3]), hematologic safety profile (Common Terminology Criteria for Common Adverse Events [CTCAE]), and overall survival. Secondary end points of quality of life (assessed with Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form questionnaires) and radiologic response (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST]) were assessed. Through retrospective screening of databases, we identified 43 eligible patients across four centers worldwide who received 154 cycles of LuPSMA under clinical trials or compassionate access programs. Median baseline PSA was 1000 (interquartile range 431-2151) ng/ml. PSA decline of at least 50% at 12 wk was achieved in 22 (58%) patients, while median time to pain progression was 8.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.1-12.6) mo. Median overall survival was 11.6 (95% CI 8.8-14.3) mo. Objective response in nodal or visceral disease was reported in seven (39%) of 18 patients with RECIST measurable disease. Grade 3 anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia occurred in nine (22%), seven (17%), and three (8%) patients, respectively. Grade 4 thrombocytopenia was noticed in three (8%) patients. In conclusion, patients with diffuse bone marrow involvement demonstrated similar LuPSMA efficacy and safety to phase II evidence. Acceptable safety outcomes do not support exclusion of patients with a superscan from future LuPSMA treatment protocols. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we investigated the feasibility of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-directed radionuclide treatment in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and diffuse bone involvement. We found that, despite a high load of bone metastases, PSMA-targeted therapy remains efficacious and safe when compared with the current phase II trial results.
The 177Lu-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (LuPSMA) radionuclide therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer is under investigation in a phase III trial (VISION: NCT03511664). However, patients with diffuse bone involvement, diagnosed with a "superscan" by bone scintigraphy at baseline, were excluded due to a lack of efficacy and safety data. We therefore aimed to investigate the feasibility of LuPSMA in patients with diffuse bone marrow involvement on baseline PSMA-targeted positron emission tomography. The primary end points were prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 [PCWG3]), hematologic safety profile (Common Terminology Criteria for Common Adverse Events [CTCAE]), and overall survival. Secondary end points of quality of life (assessed with Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form questionnaires) and radiologic response (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST]) were assessed. Through retrospective screening of databases, we identified 43 eligible patients across four centers worldwide who received 154 cycles of LuPSMA under clinical trials or compassionate access programs. Median baseline PSA was 1000 (interquartile range 431-2151) ng/ml. PSA decline of at least 50% at 12 wk was achieved in 22 (58%) patients, while median time to pain progression was 8.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.1-12.6) mo. Median overall survival was 11.6 (95% CI 8.8-14.3) mo. Objective response in nodal or visceral disease was reported in seven (39%) of 18 patients with RECIST measurable disease. Grade 3 anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia occurred in nine (22%), seven (17%), and three (8%) patients, respectively. Grade 4 thrombocytopenia was noticed in three (8%) patients. In conclusion, patients with diffuse bone marrow involvement demonstrated similar LuPSMA efficacy and safety to phase II evidence. Acceptable safety outcomes do not support exclusion of patients with a superscan from future LuPSMA treatment protocols. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we investigated the feasibility of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-directed radionuclide treatment in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and diffuse bone involvement. We found that, despite a high load of bone metastases, PSMA-targeted therapy remains efficacious and safe when compared with the current phase II trial results.
Authors: Benedikt Feuerecker; Maythinee Chantadisai; Anne Allmann; Robert Tauber; Jakob Allmann; Lisa Steinhelfer; Isabel Rauscher; Alexander Wurzer; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Wolfgang A Weber; Calogero d'Alessandria; Matthias Eiber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-09-16 Impact factor: 11.082
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: Finn Edler von Eyben; Glenn Bauman; Rie von Eyben; Kambiz Rahbar; Cigdem Soydal; Alexander R Haug; Irene Virgolini; Harshad Kulkarni; Richard Baum; Giovanni Paganelli Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2020-11-28 Impact factor: 5.923
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: David Kersting; Stephan Settelmeier; Ilektra-Antonia Mavroeidi; Ken Herrmann; Robert Seifert; Christoph Rischpler Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-03-30 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Andrei Gafita; Hui Wang; Andrew Robertson; Wesley R Armstrong; Raphael Zaum; Manuel Weber; Farid Yagubbayli; Clemens Kratochwil; Tristan R Grogan; Kathleen Nguyen; Fernando Navarro; Rouzbeh Esfandiari; Isabel Rauscher; Bjoern Menze; David Elashoff; Ebrahim S Delpassand; Ken Herrmann; Johannes Czernin; Michael S Hofman; Jeremie Calais; Wolfgang P Fendler; Matthias Eiber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 11.082