Fabio Crocerossa1,2, Michele Marchioni3,4, Giacomo Novara5, Umberto Carbonara1,6, Matteo Ferro7, Giorgio I Russo8, Francesco Porpiglia9, Marta Di Nicola4, Rocco Damiano2, Riccardo Autorino1, Francesco Cantiello2. 1. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. 2. Department of Urology, Magna Graecia University of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, Italy. 3. Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, G. d'Annunzio University of Chieti, Urology Unit, SS Annunziata Hospital, Chieti, Italy. 4. Laboratory of Biostatistics, Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, G. d'Annunzio University of Chieti, Chieti, Italy. 5. Urology Clinic, Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy. 6. Department of Urology, Andrology and Kidney Transplantation Unit, University of Bari, Bari, Italy. 7. Department of Urology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy. 8. Department of Urology, University of Catania, Catania, Italy. 9. Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, University of Turin, San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Restaging of prostate cancer in patients with biochemical recurrence after radical treatment remains a challenging clinical scenario as current imaging modalities are suboptimal. To date, prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computerized tomography seems to represent a very promising diagnostic tool in this setting. Therefore, we evaluated the detection rate of several positron emission tomography/computerized tomography prostate specific membrane antigen based tracers in the restaging of prostate cancer in patients with biochemical recurrence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: According to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement, a systematic search was performed across MEDLINE®, Embase® and Web of Science™. PICOS (Patient, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Study Type), criteria consisted of P: patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy and/or radiation therapy as primary treatment; I: studies using gallium-68-prostate specific membrane antigen-11, gallium-68-prostate specific membrane antigen inhibitor for imaging and therapy, gallium-68-trishydroxypyridinone-prostate specific membrane antigen, copper-64-prostate specific membrane antigen-617, fluorine-18-DCFPyL or fluorine-18-prostate specific membrane antigen-1007; C: no control group or positron emission tomography/computerized tomography comparative studies; O: patient specific overall detection rate; and S: retrospective/prospective studies. A meta-analysis of proportions and a network meta-analysis were performed. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran Q and I2 statistics. Quality was assessed by QUADAS-2 (University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom). Funnel plots and Egger test were used for publication biases. RESULTS: A total of 43 studies including 5,832 patients were identified and included in the analysis. An overall detection rate of 74.1% (95% CI 69.2%-78.5%) was found, with no differences between tracers. The overall detection rates were 33.7%, 50.0%, 62.8%, 73.1% and 91.7% % in prostate specific antigen subgroups of less than 0.2 ng/ml, 0.2 to 0.49 ng/ml, 0.50 to 0.99 ng/ml, 1.0 to 1.99 ng/ml, and 2.0 ng/ml or greater, respectively. No difference between tracers was found according to prostate specific antigen doubling time or prostate specific antigen velocity. No tracer proved superior to the others through network meta-analysis. High heterogeneity and inconsistency were found across all analyses. Included studies showed a low risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for prostate cancer restaging in patients with biochemical recurrence achieves best detection rates (over 70%) if prostate specific antigen is below 1 ng/ml. At lower prostate specific antigen levels the detection rate of prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computerized tomography is lower (33.7% for levels below 0.2 ng/ml and 50% for levels 0.2 to 0.49 ng/ml), despite being better than "older" tracers such as choline based positron emission tomography or computerized tomography/bone scintigraphy. Furthermore, no prostate specific membrane antigen tracer can be currently considered superior to others. Further studies are needed to better define the diagnostic performance and role of these imaging techniques.
PURPOSE: Restaging of prostate cancer in patients with biochemical recurrence after radical treatment remains a challenging clinical scenario as current imaging modalities are suboptimal. To date, prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computerized tomography seems to represent a very promising diagnostic tool in this setting. Therefore, we evaluated the detection rate of several positron emission tomography/computerized tomography prostate specific membrane antigen based tracers in the restaging of prostate cancer in patients with biochemical recurrence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: According to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement, a systematic search was performed across MEDLINE®, Embase® and Web of Science™. PICOS (Patient, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Study Type), criteria consisted of P: patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy and/or radiation therapy as primary treatment; I: studies using gallium-68-prostate specific membrane antigen-11, gallium-68-prostate specific membrane antigen inhibitor for imaging and therapy, gallium-68-trishydroxypyridinone-prostate specific membrane antigen, copper-64-prostate specific membrane antigen-617, fluorine-18-DCFPyL or fluorine-18-prostate specific membrane antigen-1007; C: no control group or positron emission tomography/computerized tomography comparative studies; O: patient specific overall detection rate; and S: retrospective/prospective studies. A meta-analysis of proportions and a network meta-analysis were performed. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran Q and I2 statistics. Quality was assessed by QUADAS-2 (University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom). Funnel plots and Egger test were used for publication biases. RESULTS: A total of 43 studies including 5,832 patients were identified and included in the analysis. An overall detection rate of 74.1% (95% CI 69.2%-78.5%) was found, with no differences between tracers. The overall detection rates were 33.7%, 50.0%, 62.8%, 73.1% and 91.7% % in prostate specific antigen subgroups of less than 0.2 ng/ml, 0.2 to 0.49 ng/ml, 0.50 to 0.99 ng/ml, 1.0 to 1.99 ng/ml, and 2.0 ng/ml or greater, respectively. No difference between tracers was found according to prostate specific antigen doubling time or prostate specific antigen velocity. No tracer proved superior to the others through network meta-analysis. High heterogeneity and inconsistency were found across all analyses. Included studies showed a low risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for prostate cancer restaging in patients with biochemical recurrence achieves best detection rates (over 70%) if prostate specific antigen is below 1 ng/ml. At lower prostate specific antigen levels the detection rate of prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computerized tomography is lower (33.7% for levels below 0.2 ng/ml and 50% for levels 0.2 to 0.49 ng/ml), despite being better than "older" tracers such as choline based positron emission tomography or computerized tomography/bone scintigraphy. Furthermore, no prostate specific membrane antigen tracer can be currently considered superior to others. Further studies are needed to better define the diagnostic performance and role of these imaging techniques.
Authors: Umberto Carbonara; Paolo Minafra; Giuseppe Papapicco; Gaetano De Rienzo; Vincenzo Pagliarulo; Giuseppe Lucarelli; Antonio Vitarelli; Pasquale Ditonno Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2022-05-23
Authors: Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Bernd Joachim Krause; Viktoria Schütz; David Bonekamp; Sarah Marie Schwarzenböck; Markus Hohenfellner Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2021-10-22 Impact factor: 8.251
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