Markus Kroenke1,2, Lilit Mirzoyan2, Thomas Horn3, Jan C Peeken4,5, Alexander Wurzer6, Hans-Jürgen Wester6, Marcus Makowski1, Wolfgang A Weber2, Matthias Eiber2, Isabel Rauscher7. 1. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 3. Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 5. Institute of Radiation Medicine, Department of Radiation Sciences, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Neuherberg, Germany; and. 6. Pharmaceutical Radiochemistry, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich. Munich, Germany. 7. Department of Nuclear Medicine, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany; isabel.rauscher@tum.de.
Abstract
Radiohybrid prostate-specific membrane antigen (rhPSMA) ligands are a new class of prostate cancer theranostic agents. 18F-rhPSMA-7 offers the advantages of 18F labeling and low urinary excretion compared with 68Ga-PSMA-11. Here, we compare the frequency of non-tumor-related uptake and tumor positivity with 68Ga-PSMA-11 and 18F-rhPSMA-7 in patients with primary or recurrent prostate cancer. Methods: This retrospective matched-pair comparison matched 160 18F-rhPSMA-7 with 160 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT studies for primary staging (n = 33) and biochemical recurrence (n = 127) according to clinical characteristics. Two nuclear medicine physicians reviewed all scans, first identifying all PET-positive lesions and then differentiating lesions suggestive of prostate cancer from those that were benign, on the basis of known pitfalls and ancillary information from CT. For each region, the SUVmax of the lesion with the highest PSMA ligand uptake was noted. Tumor positivity rates were determined, and SUVmax was compared separately for each tracer. Results: 18F-rhPSMA-7 and 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET revealed 566 and 289 PSMA ligand-positive lesions, respectively. Of these, 379 and 100 lesions, equaling 67.0% and 34.6%, respectively, of all PSMA-positive lesions, were considered benign. The distribution of their etiology was similar (42%, 24%, and 25% with 18F-rhPSMA-7 vs. 32%, 24%, and 38% with 68Ga-PSMA-11 for ganglia, bone, and unspecific lymph nodes, respectively). All primary tumors were positive with both agents (n = 33 each), whereas slightly more metastatic lesions were observed with 68Ga-PSMA-11 in both disease stages (113 for 18F-rhPSMA-7 and 124 for 68Ga-PSMA-11). The SUVmax of 18F-rhPSMA-7 and 68Ga-PSMA-11 did not differ (P > 0.05) in local recurrence or primary prostate cancer; however, the tumor-to-bladder ratio was significantly higher with 18F-rhPSMA-7 (4.9 ± 5.3 vs. 2.2 ± 3.7, P = 0.02, for local recurrence; 9.8 ± 9.7 vs. 2.3 ± 2.6, P < 0.001, for primary prostate cancer). Conclusion: The tumor positivity rate was consistently high for 68Ga-PSMA-11 and 18F-rhPSMA-7. Both tracers revealed a considerable number of areas of uptake that were reliably identified as benign by trained physicians making use of corresponding morphologic imaging and known PSMA pitfalls. These were more frequent with 18F-rhPSMA-7. However, the matched-pair comparison could have introduced a source of bias. Adequate reader training can allow physicians to differentiate benign uptake from disease and be able to benefit from the logistical and clinical advantages of 18F-rhPSMA-7.
Radiohybrid prostate-specific membrane antigen (rhPSMA) ligands are a new class of prostate cancer theranostic agents. 18F-rhPSMA-7 offers the advantages of 18F labeling and low urinary excretion compared with 68Ga-PSMA-11. Here, we compare the frequency of non-tumor-related uptake and tumor positivity with 68Ga-PSMA-11 and 18F-rhPSMA-7 in patients with primary or recurrent prostate cancer. Methods: This retrospective matched-pair comparison matched 160 18F-rhPSMA-7 with 160 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT studies for primary staging (n = 33) and biochemical recurrence (n = 127) according to clinical characteristics. Two nuclear medicine physicians reviewed all scans, first identifying all PET-positive lesions and then differentiating lesions suggestive of prostate cancer from those that were benign, on the basis of known pitfalls and ancillary information from CT. For each region, the SUVmax of the lesion with the highest PSMA ligand uptake was noted. Tumor positivity rates were determined, and SUVmax was compared separately for each tracer. Results: 18F-rhPSMA-7 and 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET revealed 566 and 289 PSMA ligand-positive lesions, respectively. Of these, 379 and 100 lesions, equaling 67.0% and 34.6%, respectively, of all PSMA-positive lesions, were considered benign. The distribution of their etiology was similar (42%, 24%, and 25% with 18F-rhPSMA-7 vs. 32%, 24%, and 38% with 68Ga-PSMA-11 for ganglia, bone, and unspecific lymph nodes, respectively). All primary tumors were positive with both agents (n = 33 each), whereas slightly more metastatic lesions were observed with 68Ga-PSMA-11 in both disease stages (113 for 18F-rhPSMA-7 and 124 for 68Ga-PSMA-11). The SUVmax of 18F-rhPSMA-7 and 68Ga-PSMA-11 did not differ (P > 0.05) in local recurrence or primary prostate cancer; however, the tumor-to-bladder ratio was significantly higher with 18F-rhPSMA-7 (4.9 ± 5.3 vs. 2.2 ± 3.7, P = 0.02, for local recurrence; 9.8 ± 9.7 vs. 2.3 ± 2.6, P < 0.001, for primary prostate cancer). Conclusion: The tumor positivity rate was consistently high for 68Ga-PSMA-11 and 18F-rhPSMA-7. Both tracers revealed a considerable number of areas of uptake that were reliably identified as benign by trained physicians making use of corresponding morphologic imaging and known PSMA pitfalls. These were more frequent with 18F-rhPSMA-7. However, the matched-pair comparison could have introduced a source of bias. Adequate reader training can allow physicians to differentiate benign uptake from disease and be able to benefit from the logistical and clinical advantages of 18F-rhPSMA-7.
Authors: Andrei Gafita; Isabel Rauscher; Wolfgang P Fendler; Vishnu Murthy; Wang Hui; Wesley R Armstrong; Ken Herrmann; Wolfgang A Weber; Jeremie Calais; Matthias Eiber; Manuel Weber; Matthias R Benz Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-06-29 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Costantina Maisto; Michela Aurilio; Anna Morisco; Roberta de Marino; Monica Josefa Buonanno Recchimuzzo; Luciano Carideo; Laura D'Ambrosio; Francesca Di Gennaro; Aureliana Esposito; Paolo Gaballo; Valentina Pirozzi Palmese; Valentina Porfidia; Marco Raddi; Alfredo Rossi; Elisabetta Squame; Secondo Lastoria Journal: Molecules Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 4.927
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: Marco M E Vogel; Sabrina Dewes; Eva K Sage; Michal Devecka; Kerstin A Eitz; Jürgen E Gschwend; Matthias Eiber; Stephanie E Combs; Kilian Schiller Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-07-30 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Constantin Lapa; Ursula Nestle; Nathalie L Albert; Christian Baues; Ambros Beer; Andreas Buck; Volker Budach; Rebecca Bütof; Stephanie E Combs; Thorsten Derlin; Matthias Eiber; Wolfgang P Fendler; Christian Furth; Cihan Gani; Eleni Gkika; Anca-L Grosu; Christoph Henkenberens; Harun Ilhan; Steffen Löck; Simone Marnitz-Schulze; Matthias Miederer; Michael Mix; Nils H Nicolay; Maximilian Niyazi; Christoph Pöttgen; Claus M Rödel; Imke Schatka; Sarah M Schwarzenboeck; Andrei S Todica; Wolfgang Weber; Simone Wegen; Thomas Wiegel; Constantinos Zamboglou; Daniel Zips; Klaus Zöphel; Sebastian Zschaeck; Daniela Thorwarth; Esther G C Troost Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Hannes Grünig; Alexander Maurer; Yannick Thali; Zsofia Kovacs; Klaus Strobel; Irene A Burger; Joachim Müller Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-06-13 Impact factor: 9.236