Le-Le Zhang1, Wen-Cheng Li2, Zheng Xu2, Nan Jiang2, Shi-Ming Zang1, Lu-Wei Xu2, Wen-Bing Huang3, Feng Wang4, Hong-Bin Sun5. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210006, China. 2. Department of Urology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210006, China. 3. Department of Pathology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210006, China. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210006, China. fengwangcn@hotmail.com. 5. Department of Urology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210006, China. docshb@126.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE:68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emissiontomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is valuable for detecting primary and recurrent prostatic lesions. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT as a triage tool for prostate biopsy (PSMA-TB) and compare with transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-GB) for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). METHODS: This single-centre study randomly allocated 120 patients with elevated serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels (> 4 ng/ml) to PSMA-PET or TRUS group. Patients with PSMA-avid lesions (SUVmax ≥ 8.0) underwent PSMA-TB via a single-puncture percutaneous transgluteal approach (n = 25), whilst patients with negative PSMA-PET underwent systematic TRUS-GB (n = 35). All patients in the TRUS group underwent TRUS-GB directly (n = 60). RESULTS:PCa and csPCa were detected in 26/60 (43.3%) and 24/60 (40.0%) patients in the PSMA-PET group and 19/60 (31.6%) and 15/60 (25.0%) in the TRUS group, respectively. In the PSMA-PET group, the detection rate of PCa and csPCa were significantly higher in PSMA-PET-positive than negative patients (PCa, 23/25 (92.0%) vs 3/35 (8.6%), P < 0.01; csPCa, 22/25 (88.0%) vs 2/35 (5.7%), P < 0.01). PSMA-TB detected significantly more PCa and csPCa than TRUS-GB in the TRUS controls (PCa, 21/25 (84.0%) vs 19/60 (31.6%), P < 0.01; csPCa, 20/25 (80.0%) vs 15/60 (25.0%), P < 0.01). PSMA-PET detected significantly more cases of csPCa amongst patients with PSA 4.0-20.0 ng/ml than TRUS (27.02% vs 8.82%, P < 0.05). No haematuria, urinary retention or pelvic infection was observed after PSMA-TB compare with TRUS-GB. CONCLUSIONS:68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT is a feasible imaging technique that may serve as a triage tool for prostate biopsy, and may improve the detection rate of csPCa compared with TRUS-GB, especially in patients with serum PSA 4.0-20.0 ng/ml.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE:68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is valuable for detecting primary and recurrent prostatic lesions. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT as a triage tool for prostate biopsy (PSMA-TB) and compare with transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-GB) for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). METHODS: This single-centre study randomly allocated 120 patients with elevated serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels (> 4 ng/ml) to PSMA-PET or TRUS group. Patients with PSMA-avid lesions (SUVmax ≥ 8.0) underwent PSMA-TB via a single-puncture percutaneous transgluteal approach (n = 25), whilst patients with negative PSMA-PET underwent systematic TRUS-GB (n = 35). All patients in the TRUS group underwent TRUS-GB directly (n = 60). RESULTS: PCa and csPCa were detected in 26/60 (43.3%) and 24/60 (40.0%) patients in the PSMA-PET group and 19/60 (31.6%) and 15/60 (25.0%) in the TRUS group, respectively. In the PSMA-PET group, the detection rate of PCa and csPCa were significantly higher in PSMA-PET-positive than negative patients (PCa, 23/25 (92.0%) vs 3/35 (8.6%), P < 0.01; csPCa, 22/25 (88.0%) vs 2/35 (5.7%), P < 0.01). PSMA-TB detected significantly more PCa and csPCa than TRUS-GB in the TRUS controls (PCa, 21/25 (84.0%) vs 19/60 (31.6%), P < 0.01; csPCa, 20/25 (80.0%) vs 15/60 (25.0%), P < 0.01). PSMA-PET detected significantly more cases of csPCa amongst patients with PSA 4.0-20.0 ng/ml than TRUS (27.02% vs 8.82%, P < 0.05). No haematuria, urinary retention or pelvic infection was observed after PSMA-TB compare with TRUS-GB. CONCLUSIONS:68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT is a feasible imaging technique that may serve as a triage tool for prostate biopsy, and may improve the detection rate of csPCa compared with TRUS-GB, especially in patients with serum PSA 4.0-20.0 ng/ml.
Authors: Lars Budäus; Sami-Ramzi Leyh-Bannurah; Georg Salomon; Uwe Michl; Hans Heinzer; Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen; Thomas Steuber; Clemens Rosenbaum Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: B Djavan; V Ravery; A Zlotta; P Dobronski; M Dobrovits; M Fakhari; C Seitz; M Susani; A Borkowski; L Boccon-Gibod; C C Schulman; M Marberger Journal: J Urol Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Annika Herlemann; Vera Wenter; Alexander Kretschmer; Kolja M Thierfelder; Peter Bartenstein; Claudius Faber; Franz-Josef Gildehaus; Christian G Stief; Christian Gratzke; Wolfgang P Fendler Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Hashim U Ahmed; Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily; Louise C Brown; Rhian Gabe; Richard Kaplan; Mahesh K Parmar; Yolanda Collaco-Moraes; Katie Ward; Richard G Hindley; Alex Freeman; Alex P Kirkham; Robert Oldroyd; Chris Parker; Mark Emberton Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Alec Paschalis; Beshara Sheehan; Ruth Riisnaes; Daniel Nava Rodrigues; Bora Gurel; Claudia Bertan; Ana Ferreira; Maryou B K Lambros; George Seed; Wei Yuan; David Dolling; Jon C Welti; Antje Neeb; Semini Sumanasuriya; Pasquale Rescigno; Diletta Bianchini; Nina Tunariu; Suzanne Carreira; Adam Sharp; Wim Oyen; Johann S de Bono Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2019-07-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Mike Sathekge; Thabo Lengana; Alex Maes; Mariza Vorster; JanRijn Zeevaart; Ismaheel Lawal; Thomas Ebenhan; Christophe Van de Wiele Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-11-04 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Pietro Pepe; Marco Roscigno; Ludovica Pepe; Paolo Panella; Marinella Tamburo; Giulia Marletta; Francesco Savoca; Giuseppe Candiano; Sebastiano Cosentino; Massimo Ippolito; Andreas Tsirgiotis; Michele Pennisi Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Dejan Kostyszyn; Tobias Fechter; Nico Bartl; Anca L Grosu; Christian Gratzke; August Sigle; Michael Mix; Juri Ruf; Thomas F Fassbender; Selina Kiefer; Alisa S Bettermann; Nils H Nicolay; Simon Spohn; Maria U Kramer; Peter Bronsert; Hongqian Guo; Xuefeng Qiu; Feng Wang; Christoph Henkenberens; Rudolf A Werner; Dimos Baltas; Philipp T Meyer; Thorsten Derlin; Mengxia Chen; Constantinos Zamboglou Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-10-30 Impact factor: 10.057
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