Y J L Bodar1,2,3, B H E Jansen4,5,6, J P van der Voorn7, G J C Zwezerijnen5, D Meijer4,5,6, J A Nieuwenhuijzen4,6, R Boellaard5, N H Hendrikse5,8, O S Hoekstra5, R J A van Moorselaar4,6, D E Oprea-Lager5, A N Vis4,6. 1. Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centres (VU University), De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. y.j.bodar@amsterdamumc.nl. 2. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centres (VU University), Amsterdam, The Netherlands. y.j.bodar@amsterdamumc.nl. 3. Prostate Cancer Network, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. y.j.bodar@amsterdamumc.nl. 4. Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centres (VU University), De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centres (VU University), Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Prostate Cancer Network, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Pathology, Amsterdam University Medical Centres (VU University), Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Amsterdam University Medical Centres (VU University), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In primary prostate cancer (PCa) patients, accurate staging and histologic grading are crucial to guide treatment decisions. 18F-DCFPyL (PSMA)-PET/CT has been successfully introduced for (re)staging PCa, showing high accuracy to localise PCa in lymph nodes and/or osseous structures. The diagnostic performance of 18F-DCFPyL-PET/CT in localizing primary PCa within the prostate gland was assessed, allowing for PSMA-guided targeted-prostate biopsy. METHODS: Thirty patients with intermediate-/high-risk primary PCa were prospectively enrolled between May 2018 and May 2019 and underwent 18F-DCFPyL-PET/CT prior to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Two experienced and blinded nuclear medicine physicians assessed tumour localisation within the prostate gland on PET/CT, using a 12-segment mapping model of the prostate. The same model was used by a uro-pathologist for the RARP specimens. Based on PET/CT imaging, a potential biopsy recommendation was given per patient, based on the size and PET-intensity of the suspected PCa localisations. The biopsy recommendation was correlated to final histopathology in the RARP specimen. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for clinically significant PCa (csPCa, Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4 = 7) were assessed. RESULTS: The segments recommended for potential targeted biopsy harboured csPCA in 28/30 patients (93%), and covered the highest Gleason score PCa segment in 26/30 patient (87%). Overall, 122 of 420 segments (29.0%) contained csPCa at final histopathological examination. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for csPCa per segment using 18F-DCFPyL-PET/CT were 61.4%, 88.3%, 68.1% and 84.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: When comparing the PCa-localisation on 18F-DCFPyL-PET/CT with the RARP specimens, an accurate per-patient detection (93%) and localisation of csPCa was found. Thus, 18F-DCFPyL-PET/CT potentially allows for accurate PSMA-targeted biopsy.
PURPOSE: In primary prostate cancer (PCa) patients, accurate staging and histologic grading are crucial to guide treatment decisions. 18F-DCFPyL (PSMA)-PET/CT has been successfully introduced for (re)staging PCa, showing high accuracy to localise PCa in lymph nodes and/or osseous structures. The diagnostic performance of 18F-DCFPyL-PET/CT in localizing primary PCa within the prostate gland was assessed, allowing for PSMA-guided targeted-prostate biopsy. METHODS: Thirty patients with intermediate-/high-risk primary PCa were prospectively enrolled between May 2018 and May 2019 and underwent 18F-DCFPyL-PET/CT prior to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Two experienced and blinded nuclear medicine physicians assessed tumour localisation within the prostate gland on PET/CT, using a 12-segment mapping model of the prostate. The same model was used by a uro-pathologist for the RARP specimens. Based on PET/CT imaging, a potential biopsy recommendation was given per patient, based on the size and PET-intensity of the suspected PCa localisations. The biopsy recommendation was correlated to final histopathology in the RARP specimen. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for clinically significant PCa (csPCa, Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4 = 7) were assessed. RESULTS: The segments recommended for potential targeted biopsy harboured csPCA in 28/30 patients (93%), and covered the highest Gleason score PCa segment in 26/30 patient (87%). Overall, 122 of 420 segments (29.0%) contained csPCa at final histopathological examination. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for csPCa per segment using 18F-DCFPyL-PET/CT were 61.4%, 88.3%, 68.1% and 84.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: When comparing the PCa-localisation on 18F-DCFPyL-PET/CT with the RARP specimens, an accurate per-patient detection (93%) and localisation of csPCa was found. Thus, 18F-DCFPyL-PET/CT potentially allows for accurate PSMA-targeted biopsy.
Authors: Sven Perner; Matthias D Hofer; Robert Kim; Rajal B Shah; Haojie Li; Peter Möller; Richard E Hautmann; Juergen E Gschwend; Rainer Kuefer; Mark A Rubin Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2007-02-22 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Brian R Lane; Craig D Zippe; Robert Abouassaly; Lynn Schoenfield; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; J Stephen Jones Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-03-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Marc A Bjurlin; H Ballentine Carter; Paul Schellhammer; Michael S Cookson; Leonard G Gomella; Dean Troyer; Thomas M Wheeler; Steven Schlossberg; David F Penson; Samir S Taneja Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: A V D'Amico; R Whittington; S B Malkowicz; D Schultz; K Blank; G A Broderick; J E Tomaszewski; A A Renshaw; I Kaplan; C J Beard; A Wein Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-09-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J Ferlay; M Colombet; I Soerjomataram; T Dyba; G Randi; M Bettio; A Gavin; O Visser; F Bray Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Antti S Rannikko; Marcelo Borghi; Valeria Panebianco; Lance A Mynderse; Markku H Vaarala; Alberto Briganti; Lars Budäus; Giles Hellawell; Richard G Hindley; Monique J Roobol; Scott Eggener; Maneesh Ghei; Arnauld Villers; Franck Bladou; Geert M Villeirs; Jaspal Virdi; Silvan Boxler; Grégoire Robert; Paras B Singh; Wulphert Venderink; Boris A Hadaschik; Alain Ruffion; Jim C Hu; Daniel Margolis; Sébastien Crouzet; Laurence Klotz; Samir S Taneja; Peter Pinto; Inderbir Gill; Clare Allen; Francesco Giganti; Alex Freeman; Stephen Morris; Shonit Punwani; Norman R Williams; Chris Brew-Graves; Jonathan Deeks; Yemisi Takwoingi; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-03-18 Impact factor: 176.079
Authors: Michael S Hofman; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Roslyn J Francis; Colin Tang; Ian Vela; Paul Thomas; Natalie Rutherford; Jarad M Martin; Mark Frydenberg; Ramdave Shakher; Lih-Ming Wong; Kim Taubman; Sze Ting Lee; Edward Hsiao; Paul Roach; Michelle Nottage; Ian Kirkwood; Dickon Hayne; Emma Link; Petra Marusic; Anetta Matera; Alan Herschtal; Amir Iravani; Rodney J Hicks; Scott Williams; Declan G Murphy Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-03-22 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Daniela A Ferraro; Andreas M Hötker; Olivio F Donati; Irene A Burger; Anton S Becker; Iliana Mebert; Riccardo Laudicella; Anka Baltensperger; Niels J Rupp; Jan H Rueschoff; Julian Müller; Ashkan Mortezavi; Marcelo T Sapienza; Daniel Eberli Journal: Eur J Hybrid Imaging Date: 2022-07-18
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