Mikael Anttinen1, Otto Ettala2, Simona Malaspina3, Ivan Jambor4, Minna Sandell5, Sami Kajander3, Irina Rinta-Kiikka6, Jukka Schildt7, Ekaterina Saukko5, Pentti Rautio8, Kirsi L Timonen9, Tuomas Matikainen2, Tommi Noponen10, Jani Saunavaara10, Eliisa Löyttyniemi11, Pekka Taimen12, Jukka Kemppainen3, Peter B Dean5, Roberto Blanco Sequeiros5, Hannu J Aronen5, Marko Seppänen13, Peter J Boström2. 1. Department of Urology, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland. Electronic address: mhjant@utu.fi. 2. Department of Urology, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland. 3. Turku PET Centre, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland. 4. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland; Department of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland. 6. Department of Radiology, Tampere University and Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland. 7. Department of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. 8. Department of Clinical Physiology, North Karelia Central Hospital, Joensuu, Finland. 9. Department of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Central Hospital of Central Finland, Jyväskylä, Finland. 10. Department of Medical Physics and Nuclear Medicine, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland. 11. Department of Biostatistics, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. 12. Institute of Biomedicine, University of Turku and Department of Pathology, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland. 13. Department of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine and Turku PET Centre, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) and bone scintigraphy (BS) are the imaging modalities currently used for distant metastasis staging of prostate cancer (PCa). OBJECTIVE: To compare standard staging modalities with newer and potentially more accurate imaging modalities. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This prospective, single-centre trial (NCT03537391) enrolled 80 patients with newly diagnosed high-risk PCa (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥3 and/or prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≥20 and/or cT ≥ T3; March 2018-June 2019) to undergo primary metastasis staging with two standard and three advanced imaging modalities. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The participants underwent the following five imaging examinations within 2 wk of enrolment and without a prespecified sequence: BS, CT, 99mTc-hydroxymethylene diphosphonate (99mTc-HMDP) single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)-CT, 1.5 T whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WBMRI) using diffusion-weighted imaging, and 18F-prostate-specific membrane antigen-1007 (18F-PSMA-1007) positron emission tomography(PET)-CT. Each modality was reviewed by two independent experts blinded to the results of the prior studies, who classified lesions as benign, equivocal, or malignant. Pessimistic and optimistic analyses were performed to resolve each equivocal diagnosis. The reference standard diagnosis was defined using all available information accrued during at least 12 mo of clinical follow-up. Patients with equivocal reference standard diagnoses underwent MRI and/or CT to search for the development of anatomical correspondence. PSMA PET-avid lesions without histopathological verification were rated to be malignant only if there was a corresponding anatomical finding suspicious for malignancy at the primary or follow-up imaging. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Seventy-nine men underwent all imaging modalities except for one case of interrupted MRI. The median interval per patient between the first and the last imaging study was 8 d (interquartile range [IQR]: 6-9). The mean age was 70 yr (standard deviation: 7) and median PSA 12 ng/mL (IQR:7-23). The median follow-up was 435 d (IQR: 378-557). Metastatic disease was detected in 20 (25%) patients. The imaging modality 18F-PSMA-1007 PET-CT had superior sensitivity and highest inter-reader agreement. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) values for bone metastasis detection with PSMA PET-CT were 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85-0.95) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.87-0.96) for readers 1 and 2, respectively, while the AUC values for BS, CT, SPECT-CT, and WBMRI were 0.71 (95% CI: 0.58-0.84) and 0.8 (95% CI: 0.67-0.92), 0.53 (95% CI: 0.39-0.67) and 0.66 (95% CI: 0.54-0.77), 0.77 (95% CI: 0.65-0.89) and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.62-0.88), and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.74-0.96) and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.54-0.80), respectively, for the other four pairs of readers. The imaging method 18F-PSMA-1007 PET-CT detected metastatic disease in 11/20 patients in whom standard imaging was negative and influenced clinical decision making in 14/79 (18%) patients. In 12/79 cases, false positive bone disease was reported only by PSMA PET-CT. Limitations included a nonrandomised study setting and few histopathologically validated suspicious lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the risk of false positive bone lesions, 18F-PSMA-1007 PET-CT outperformed all other imaging methods studied for the detection of primary distant metastasis in high-risk PCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we compared the diagnostic performance of conventional and advanced imaging. It was found that 18F-prostate-specific membrane antigen-1007 positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-PSMA-1007 PET-CT) was superior to the other imaging modalities studied for the detection of distant metastasis at the time of initial diagnosis of high-risk prostate cancer. PSMA PET-CT also appears to detect some nonmetastatic bone lesions.
BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) and bone scintigraphy (BS) are the imaging modalities currently used for distant metastasis staging of prostate cancer (PCa). OBJECTIVE: To compare standard staging modalities with newer and potentially more accurate imaging modalities. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This prospective, single-centre trial (NCT03537391) enrolled 80 patients with newly diagnosed high-risk PCa (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥3 and/or prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≥20 and/or cT ≥ T3; March 2018-June 2019) to undergo primary metastasis staging with two standard and three advanced imaging modalities. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The participants underwent the following five imaging examinations within 2 wk of enrolment and without a prespecified sequence: BS, CT, 99mTc-hydroxymethylene diphosphonate (99mTc-HMDP) single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)-CT, 1.5 T whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WBMRI) using diffusion-weighted imaging, and 18F-prostate-specific membrane antigen-1007 (18F-PSMA-1007) positron emission tomography(PET)-CT. Each modality was reviewed by two independent experts blinded to the results of the prior studies, who classified lesions as benign, equivocal, or malignant. Pessimistic and optimistic analyses were performed to resolve each equivocal diagnosis. The reference standard diagnosis was defined using all available information accrued during at least 12 mo of clinical follow-up. Patients with equivocal reference standard diagnoses underwent MRI and/or CT to search for the development of anatomical correspondence. PSMA PET-avid lesions without histopathological verification were rated to be malignant only if there was a corresponding anatomical finding suspicious for malignancy at the primary or follow-up imaging. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Seventy-nine men underwent all imaging modalities except for one case of interrupted MRI. The median interval per patient between the first and the last imaging study was 8 d (interquartile range [IQR]: 6-9). The mean age was 70 yr (standard deviation: 7) and median PSA 12 ng/mL (IQR:7-23). The median follow-up was 435 d (IQR: 378-557). Metastatic disease was detected in 20 (25%) patients. The imaging modality 18F-PSMA-1007 PET-CT had superior sensitivity and highest inter-reader agreement. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) values for bone metastasis detection with PSMA PET-CT were 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85-0.95) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.87-0.96) for readers 1 and 2, respectively, while the AUC values for BS, CT, SPECT-CT, and WBMRI were 0.71 (95% CI: 0.58-0.84) and 0.8 (95% CI: 0.67-0.92), 0.53 (95% CI: 0.39-0.67) and 0.66 (95% CI: 0.54-0.77), 0.77 (95% CI: 0.65-0.89) and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.62-0.88), and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.74-0.96) and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.54-0.80), respectively, for the other four pairs of readers. The imaging method 18F-PSMA-1007 PET-CT detected metastatic disease in 11/20 patients in whom standard imaging was negative and influenced clinical decision making in 14/79 (18%) patients. In 12/79 cases, false positive bone disease was reported only by PSMA PET-CT. Limitations included a nonrandomised study setting and few histopathologically validated suspicious lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the risk of false positive bone lesions, 18F-PSMA-1007 PET-CT outperformed all other imaging methods studied for the detection of primary distant metastasis in high-risk PCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we compared the diagnostic performance of conventional and advanced imaging. It was found that 18F-prostate-specific membrane antigen-1007 positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-PSMA-1007 PET-CT) was superior to the other imaging modalities studied for the detection of distant metastasis at the time of initial diagnosis of high-risk prostate cancer. PSMA PET-CT also appears to detect some nonmetastatic bone lesions.
Authors: Divya Yadav; Hyunsoo Hwang; Wei Qiao; Rituraj Upadhyay; Brian F Chapin; Chad Tang; Ana Aparicio; Maria A Lopez-Olivo; Stella K Kang; Homer A Macapinlac; Tharakeswara K Bathala; Devaki Shilpa Surasi Journal: Radiol Imaging Cancer Date: 2022-03
Authors: Simona Malaspina; Otto Ettala; Tuula Tolvanen; Johan Rajander; Olli Eskola; Peter J Boström; Jukka Kemppainen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-09-26 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Simona Malaspina; Mikael Anttinen; Pekka Taimen; Ivan Jambor; Minna Sandell; Irina Rinta-Kiikka; Sami Kajander; Jukka Schildt; Ekaterina Saukko; Tommi Noponen; Jani Saunavaara; Peter B Dean; Roberto Blanco Sequeiros; Hannu J Aronen; Jukka Kemppainen; Marko Seppänen; Peter J Boström; Otto Ettala Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-03-13 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Venkata Avinash Chikatamarla; Satomi Okano; Peter Jenvey; Alexander Ansaldo; Matthew J Roberts; Stuart C Ramsay; Paul A Thomas; David A Pattison Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2021-12-20 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Adam M Kase; Winston Tan; John A Copland; Hancheng Cai; Ephraim E Parent; Ravi A Madan Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 6.639