Stefano Fanti1, Karolien Goffin2, Boris A Hadaschik3, Ken Herrmann4, Tobias Maurer5, Steven MacLennan6, Daniela E Oprea-Lager7, Wim Jg Oyen8,9,10, Olivier Rouvière11,12, Nicolas Mottet13, Anders Bjartell14. 1. Nuclear Medicine Division, Policlinico S Orsola, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University Hospital Leuven and KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 3. Department of Urology, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK)-University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK)-University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. 5. Department of Urology and Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, Universitätsklinikum, Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 6. Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK. 7. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 8. Humanitas University and Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Milan, Italy. 9. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 10. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Rijnstate Hospital Arnhem, Arnhem, The Netherlands. 11. Department of Imaging, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France. 12. Faculté de Médecine Lyon Est, Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, 69003, Lyon, France. 13. University Hôpital Nord, Saint Etienne, France. 14. Department of Urology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden. anders.bjartell@med.lu.se.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) is used for (re)staging prostate cancer (PCa) and as a biomarker for evaluating response to therapy, but lacks established response criteria. A panel of PCa experts in nuclear medicine, radiology, and/or urology met on February 21, 2020, in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, to formulate criteria for PSMA PET/CT-based response in patients treated for metastatic PCa and optimal timing to use it. METHODS: Panelists received thematic topics and relevant literature prior to the meeting. Statements on how to interpret response and progression on therapy in PCa with PSMA PET/CT and when to use it were developed. Panelists voted anonymously on a nine-point scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (9). Median scores described agreement and consensus. RESULTS: PSMA PET/CT consensus statements concerned utility, best timing for performing, criteria for evaluation of response, patients who could benefit, and handling of radiolabeled PSMA PET tracers. Consensus was reached on all statements. PSMA PET/CT can be used before and after any local and systemic treatment in patients with metastatic disease to evaluate response to treatment. Ideally, PSMA PET/CT imaging criteria should categorize patients as responders, patients with stable disease, partial response, and complete response, or as non-responders. Specific clinical scenarios such as oligometastatic or polymetastatic disease deserve special consideration. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of PSMA PET/CT should be supported by indication for appropriate use and precise criteria for interpretation. PSMA PET/CT criteria should categorize patients as responders or non-responders. Specific clinical scenarios deserve special consideration.
PURPOSE:Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) is used for (re)staging prostate cancer (PCa) and as a biomarker for evaluating response to therapy, but lacks established response criteria. A panel of PCa experts in nuclear medicine, radiology, and/or urology met on February 21, 2020, in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, to formulate criteria for PSMA PET/CT-based response in patients treated for metastatic PCa and optimal timing to use it. METHODS: Panelists received thematic topics and relevant literature prior to the meeting. Statements on how to interpret response and progression on therapy in PCa with PSMA PET/CT and when to use it were developed. Panelists voted anonymously on a nine-point scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (9). Median scores described agreement and consensus. RESULTS:PSMA PET/CT consensus statements concerned utility, best timing for performing, criteria for evaluation of response, patients who could benefit, and handling of radiolabeled PSMA PET tracers. Consensus was reached on all statements. PSMA PET/CT can be used before and after any local and systemic treatment in patients with metastatic disease to evaluate response to treatment. Ideally, PSMA PET/CT imaging criteria should categorize patients as responders, patients with stable disease, partial response, and complete response, or as non-responders. Specific clinical scenarios such as oligometastatic or polymetastatic disease deserve special consideration. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of PSMA PET/CT should be supported by indication for appropriate use and precise criteria for interpretation. PSMA PET/CT criteria should categorize patients as responders or non-responders. Specific clinical scenarios deserve special consideration.
Authors: Rahul Aggarwal; Xiao Wei; Won Kim; Eric J Small; Charles J Ryan; Peter Carroll; Matthew Cooperberg; Michael J Evans; Thomas Hope Journal: Eur Urol Oncol Date: 2018-05-15
Authors: Anna Katharina Seitz; Isabel Rauscher; Bernhard Haller; Markus Krönke; Sophia Luther; Matthias M Heck; Thomas Horn; Jürgen E Gschwend; Markus Schwaiger; Matthias Eiber; Tobias Maurer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Stefano Fanti; Silvia Minozzi; Gerald Antoch; Ian Banks; Alberto Briganti; Ignasi Carrio; Arturo Chiti; Noel Clarke; Matthias Eiber; Johann De Bono; Karim Fizazi; Silke Gillessen; Sam Gledhill; Uwe Haberkorn; Ken Herrmann; Rodney J Hicks; Frederic Lecouvet; Rodolfo Montironi; Piet Ost; Joe M O'Sullivan; Anwar R Padhani; Jack A Schalken; Howard I Scher; Bertrand Tombal; R Jeroen A van Moorselaar; Heindrik Van Poppel; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Jochen Walz; Wolfgang A Weber; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Wim J G Oyen Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 41.316
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: 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: Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Nils Debus; Monika Uhrig; Thomas A Hope; Michael J Evans; Tim Holland-Letz; Frederik L Giesel; Klaus Kopka; Boris Hadaschik; Clemens Kratochwil; Uwe Haberkorn Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-07-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Hossein Jadvar; Jeremie Calais; Stefano Fanti; Felix Feng; Kirsten L Greene; James L Gulley; Michael Hofman; Bridget F Koontz; Daniel W Lin; Michael J Morris; Steve P Rowe; Trevor J Royce; Simpa Salami; Bital Savir-Baruch; Sandy Srinivas; Thomas A Hope Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-09-30 Impact factor: 11.082
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: Friederike Völter; Lena Mittlmeier; Astrid Gosewisch; Julia Brosch-Lenz; Franz Josef Gildehaus; Mathias Johannes Zacherl; Leonie Beyer; Christian G Stief; Adrien Holzgreve; Johannes Rübenthaler; Clemens C Cyran; Guido Böning; Peter Bartenstein; Andrei Todica; Harun Ilhan Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-03-03
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
Authors: Mike M Sathekge; Frank Bruchertseifer; Mariza Vorster; Alfred Morgenstern; Ismaheel O Lawal Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-06-26 Impact factor: 9.236