B H E Jansen1,2,3, Y J L Bodar4,5,6, G J C Zwezerijnen7, D Meijer8,7,9, J P van der Voorn10, J A Nieuwenhuijzen8,9, M Wondergem11, T A Roeleveld9,12, R Boellaard7, O S Hoekstra7, R J A van Moorselaar8,9, D E Oprea-Lager7, A N Vis8,9. 1. Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centres (VU University), De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. bj.jansen@amsterdamumc.nl. 2. Department of Radiology & Nuclear medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centres (VU University), De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. bj.jansen@amsterdamumc.nl. 3. Prostate Cancer Network, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. bj.jansen@amsterdamumc.nl. 4. Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centres (VU University), De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. y.j.bodar@amsterdamumc.nl. 5. Department of Radiology & Nuclear medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centres (VU University), De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. y.j.bodar@amsterdamumc.nl. 6. Prostate Cancer Network, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. y.j.bodar@amsterdamumc.nl. 7. Department of Radiology & Nuclear medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centres (VU University), De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centres (VU University), De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 9. Prostate Cancer Network, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 10. Department of Pathology, Amsterdam University Medical Centres (VU University), Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 11. Department of Nuclear medicine, Noordwest Ziekenhuisgroep, Alkmaar, The Netherlands. 12. Department of Urology, Noordwest Ziekenhuisgroep, Alkmaar, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The detection of lymph-node metastases (N1) with conventional imaging such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) is inadequate for primarily diagnosed prostate cancer (PCa). Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT is successfully introduced for the staging of (biochemically) recurrent PCa. Besides the frequently used 68gallium-labelled PSMA tracers, 18fluorine-labelled PSMA tracers are available. This study examined the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-DCFPyL (PSMA) PET/CT for lymph-node staging in primary PCa. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicentre cohort study. Patients with primary PCa underwent 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT prior to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with extended pelvic lymph-node dissection (ePLND). Patients were included between October 2017 and January 2020. A Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC) nomogram risk probability of ≥ 8% of lymph-node metastases was set to perform ePLND. All images were reviewed by two experienced nuclear physicians, and were compared with post-operative histopathologic results. RESULTS: A total of 117 patients was analysed. Lymph-node metastases (N1) were histologically diagnosed in 17/117 patients (14.5%). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for the 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT detection of pelvic lymph-node metastases on a patient level were 41.2% (confidence interval (CI): 19.4-66.5%), 94.0% (CI 86.9-97.5%), 53.8% (CI 26.1-79.6%) and 90.4% (CI 82.6-95.0%), respectively. CONCLUSION: 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT showed a high specificity (94.4%), yet a limited sensitivity (41.2%) for the detection of pelvic lymph-node metastases in primary PCa. This implies that current PSMA PET/CT imaging cannot replace diagnostic ePLND. Further research is necessary to define the exact place of PSMA PET/CT imaging in the primary staging of PCa.
PURPOSE: The detection of lymph-node metastases (N1) with conventional imaging such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) is inadequate for primarily diagnosed prostate cancer (PCa). Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT is successfully introduced for the staging of (biochemically) recurrent PCa. Besides the frequently used 68gallium-labelled PSMA tracers, 18fluorine-labelled PSMA tracers are available. This study examined the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-DCFPyL (PSMA) PET/CT for lymph-node staging in primary PCa. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicentre cohort study. Patients with primary PCa underwent 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT prior to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with extended pelvic lymph-node dissection (ePLND). Patients were included between October 2017 and January 2020. A Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC) nomogram risk probability of ≥ 8% of lymph-node metastases was set to perform ePLND. All images were reviewed by two experienced nuclear physicians, and were compared with post-operative histopathologic results. RESULTS: A total of 117 patients was analysed. Lymph-node metastases (N1) were histologically diagnosed in 17/117 patients (14.5%). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for the 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT detection of pelvic lymph-node metastases on a patient level were 41.2% (confidence interval (CI): 19.4-66.5%), 94.0% (CI 86.9-97.5%), 53.8% (CI 26.1-79.6%) and 90.4% (CI 82.6-95.0%), respectively. CONCLUSION: 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT showed a high specificity (94.4%), yet a limited sensitivity (41.2%) for the detection of pelvic lymph-node metastases in primary PCa. This implies that current PSMA PET/CT imaging cannot replace diagnostic ePLND. Further research is necessary to define the exact place of PSMA PET/CT imaging in the primary staging of PCa.
Entities:
Keywords:
18F-DCFPyL PET/CT; Lymph-node metastasis; PSMA-ligand; Primary staging; Prostate cancer
Authors: Zsolt Szabo; Esther Mena; Steven P Rowe; Donika Plyku; Rosa Nidal; Mario A Eisenberger; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Hong Fan; Robert F Dannals; Ying Chen; Ronnie C Mease; Melin Vranesic; Akrita Bhatnagar; George Sgouros; Steve Y Cho; Martin G Pomper Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Marlon Perera; Nathan Papa; Matthew Roberts; Michael Williams; Cristian Udovicich; Ian Vela; Daniel Christidis; Damien Bolton; Michael S Hofman; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Declan G Murphy Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 20.096
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: A M Hövels; R A M Heesakkers; E M Adang; G J Jager; S Strum; Y L Hoogeveen; J L Severens; J O Barentsz Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2008-02-04 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Wojciech Cytawa; Anna Katharina Seitz; Stefan Kircher; Kazuhito Fukushima; Johannes Tran-Gia; Andreas Schirbel; Tomasz Bandurski; Piotr Lass; Markus Krebs; Wojciech Połom; Marcin Matuszewski; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Andreas K Buck; Hubert Kübler; Constantin Lapa Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-09-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jutta Engel; Patrick J Bastian; Helmut Baur; Volker Beer; Christian Chaussy; Juergen E Gschwend; Ralph Oberneder; Karl H Rothenberger; Christian G Stief; Dieter Hölzel Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-01-20 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Christoph-Alexander J von Klot; Axel S Merseburger; Alena Böker; Sebastian Schmuck; Tobias L Ross; Frank M Bengel; Markus A Kuczyk; Christoph Henkenberens; Hans Christiansen; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Wiebke Solass; Marcel Lafos; Thorsten Derlin Journal: Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-03-07
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: Wietske I Luining; Matthijs C F Cysouw; Dennie Meijer; N Harry Hendrikse; Ronald Boellaard; André N Vis; Daniela E Oprea-Lager Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-02-24 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Yves J L Bodar; Hans Veerman; Dennie Meijer; Katelijne de Bie; Pim J van Leeuwen; Maarten L Donswijk; R Jeroen A van Moorselaar; N Harry Hendrikse; Ronald Boellaard; Daniela E Oprea-Lager; André N Vis Journal: BJU Int Date: 2022-03-12 Impact factor: 5.969
Authors: Esmée C A van der Sar; Willem R Keusters; Ludwike W M van Kalmthout; Arthur J A T Braat; Bart de Keizer; Geert W J Frederix; Anko Kooistra; Jules Lavalaye; Marnix G E H Lam; Harm H E van Melick Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2022-08-13