Elisa Perry1, Arpit Talwar2, Kim Taubman2, Michael Ng3, Lih-Ming Wong4,5, Russell Booth2, Tom R Sutherland2,6. 1. Pacific Radiology, Christchurch, Canterbury, New Zealand. elisa.perry@pacificradiology.com. 2. Department of Medical Imaging, St. Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 3. GenesisCare, St. Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 4. Department of Urology, St. Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 5. Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 6. Faculty of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The primary aim of this retrospective multicenter analysis was to assess the performance of PSMA PET/CT using [18F]DCFPyL in the detection and localization of recurrent prostate cancer post radical prostatectomy (RP). Particular reference is given to low PSA groups < 0.5 ng/mL to aid discussion around the inclusion of this group in PSMA guidelines and funding pathways. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of combined PSMA database patients from centers in Australia and New Zealand. Two hundred twenty-two patients presenting with recurrence post RP were stratified into five PSA groups (ng/mL): 0-0.19, 0.2-0.49, 0.5-0.99, 1-1.99, and ≥ 2. Lesions detected by [18F]DCFPyL PET/CT were recorded as local recurrence, locoregional nodes, and metastases. RESULTS: Of 222 patients, 155 (69.8%) had evidence of abnormal uptake suggestive of recurrent prostate cancer. The detection efficacies for [18F]DCFPyL PET/CT were 91.7% (44/48) for PSA levels ≥ 2 ng/mL, 82.1% (23/28) for PSA levels 1-1.99 ng/mL, 62.8% (27/43) for PSA levels 0.5-0.99 ng/mL, 58.7% (54/92) for PSA levels 0.2-0.49 ng/mL, and 63.6% (7/11) for PSA levels ≤ 0.2 ng/mL. In those with PSA < 0.5 ng/mL, 47.6% (49/103) had detectable lesions, 71.4% (35/49) had disease confined to the pelvis, 22.4% (11/49) had prostate bed recurrence, 49.0% (24/49) had pelvic lymph nodes, and 28.6% (14/49) had extra pelvic disease. CONCLUSION: [18F]DCFPyL PET/CT has a high detection rate in recurrence following RP even at low PSA levels with similar detection levels in the PSA subgroups < 0.5 ng/mL. Employing rigid PSA thresholds when constructing guidelines for PSMA PET/CT funding eligibility may result in a significant number of patients below such thresholds having delayed or inappropriate treatment.
PURPOSE: The primary aim of this retrospective multicenter analysis was to assess the performance of PSMA PET/CT using [18F]DCFPyL in the detection and localization of recurrent prostate cancer post radical prostatectomy (RP). Particular reference is given to low PSA groups < 0.5 ng/mL to aid discussion around the inclusion of this group in PSMA guidelines and funding pathways. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of combined PSMA database patients from centers in Australia and New Zealand. Two hundred twenty-two patients presenting with recurrence post RP were stratified into five PSA groups (ng/mL): 0-0.19, 0.2-0.49, 0.5-0.99, 1-1.99, and ≥ 2. Lesions detected by [18F]DCFPyL PET/CT were recorded as local recurrence, locoregional nodes, and metastases. RESULTS: Of 222 patients, 155 (69.8%) had evidence of abnormal uptake suggestive of recurrent prostate cancer. The detection efficacies for [18F]DCFPyL PET/CT were 91.7% (44/48) for PSA levels ≥ 2 ng/mL, 82.1% (23/28) for PSA levels 1-1.99 ng/mL, 62.8% (27/43) for PSA levels 0.5-0.99 ng/mL, 58.7% (54/92) for PSA levels 0.2-0.49 ng/mL, and 63.6% (7/11) for PSA levels ≤ 0.2 ng/mL. In those with PSA < 0.5 ng/mL, 47.6% (49/103) had detectable lesions, 71.4% (35/49) had disease confined to the pelvis, 22.4% (11/49) had prostate bed recurrence, 49.0% (24/49) had pelvic lymph nodes, and 28.6% (14/49) had extra pelvic disease. CONCLUSION: [18F]DCFPyL PET/CT has a high detection rate in recurrence following RP even at low PSA levels with similar detection levels in the PSA subgroups < 0.5 ng/mL. Employing rigid PSA thresholds when constructing guidelines for PSMA PET/CT funding eligibility may result in a significant number of patients below such thresholds having delayed or inappropriate treatment.
Authors: Philip Cornford; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Erik Briers; Maria De Santis; Tobias Gross; Ann M Henry; Steven Joniau; Thomas B Lam; Malcolm D Mason; Henk G van der Poel; Theo H van der Kwast; Olivier Rouvière; Thomas Wiegel; Nicolas Mottet Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Pim J van Leeuwen; Phillip Stricker; George Hruby; Andrew Kneebone; Francis Ting; Ben Thompson; Quoc Nguyen; Bao Ho; Louise Emmett Journal: BJU Int Date: 2016-01-24 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Guilherme Godoy; Kian Tai Chong; Angel Cronin; Andrew Vickers; Vincent Laudone; Karim Touijer; Bertrand Guillonneau; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Jonathan A Coleman Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-01-18 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Matthew R Cooperberg; David J Pasta; Eric P Elkin; Mark S Litwin; David M Latini; Janeen Du Chane; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: John B Eifler; Zhaoyang Feng; Brian M Lin; Michael T Partin; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Misop Han; Jonathan I Epstein; Patrick C Walsh; Bruce J Trock; Alan W Partin Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-07-26 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: M L Cher; F J Bianco; J S Lam; L P Davis; D J Grignon; W A Sakr; M Banerjee; J E Pontes; D P Wood Journal: J Urol Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ahmed Ebada Salem; Gabriel C Fine; Matthew F Covington; Bhasker R Koppula; Richard H Wiggins; John M Hoffman; Kathryn A Morton Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-06-18 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Vy Tran; Anne Hong; Tom Sutherland; Kim Taubman; Su-Faye Lee; Daniel Lenaghan; Kapil Sethi; Niall M Corcoran; Nathan Lawrentschuk; H Woo; Lisa Tarlinton; Damien Bolton; Tim Spelman; Lauren Thomas; Russell Booth; Justin Hegarty; Elisa Perry; Lih-Ming Wong Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-09-19 Impact factor: 3.006