Olayinka A Abiodun-Ojo1, Ashesh B Jani2, Akinyemi A Akintayo3, Oladunni O Akin-Akintayo3, Oluwaseun A Odewole3, Funmilayo I Tade4, Shreyas S Joshi5, Viraj A Master5, Bridget Fielder3, Raghuveer K Halkar3, Chao Zhang6, Subir Goyal7, Mark M Goodman3,8, David M Schuster3. 1. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia; ojo@emory.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 4. Department of Radiology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois. 5. Department of Urology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 6. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 7. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Shared Resource, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia; and. 8. Emory University Center for Systems Imaging, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
Imaging with novel PET radiotracers has significantly influenced radiotherapy decision making and radiation planning in patients with recurrent prostate cancer (PCa). The purpose of this analysis was to report the final results for management decision changes based on 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT findings and determine whether the decision change trend remained after completion of accrual. Methods: Patients with detectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) after prostatectomy were randomized to undergo either conventional imaging (CI) only (arm A) or CI plus 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT (arm B) before radiotherapy. In arm B, positivity rates on CI and 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT for detection of recurrent PCa were determined. Final decisions on whether to offer radiotherapy and whether to include only the prostate bed or also the pelvis in the radiotherapy field were based on 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT findings. Radiotherapy decisions before and after 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT were compared. The statistical significance of decision changes was determined using the Clopper-Pearson (exact) binomial method. Prognostic factors were compared between patients with and without decision changes. Results: All 165 patients enrolled in the study had standard-of-care CI and were initially planned to receive radiotherapy. Sixty-three of 79 (79.7%) patients (median PSA, 0.33 ng/mL) who underwent 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT (arm B) had positive findings. 18F-Fluciclovine PET/CT had a significantly higher positivity rate than CI did for the whole body (79.7% vs. 13.9%; P < 0.001), prostate bed (69.6% vs. 5.1%; P < 0.001), and pelvic lymph nodes (38.0% vs. 10.1%; P < 0.001). Twenty-eight of 79 (35.4%) patients had the overall radiotherapy decision changed after 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT; in 4 of 79 (5.1%), the decision to use radiotherapy was withdrawn because of extrapelvic disease detected on 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT. In 24 of 75 (32.0%) patients with a final decision to undergo radiotherapy, the radiotherapy field was changed. Changes in overall radiotherapy decisions and radiotherapy fields were statistically significant (P < 0.001). Overall, the mean PSA at PET was significantly different between patients with and without radiotherapy decision changes (P = 0.033). Conclusion: 18F-Fluciclovine PET/CT significantly altered salvage radiotherapy decisions in patients with recurrent PCa after prostatectomy. Further analysis to determine the impact of 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT guidance on clinical outcomes after radiotherapy is in progress.
Imaging with novel PET radiotracers has significantly influenced radiotherapy decision making and radiation planning in patients with recurrent prostate cancer (PCa). The purpose of this analysis was to report the final results for management decision changes based on 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT findings and determine whether the decision change trend remained after completion of accrual. Methods: Patients with detectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) after prostatectomy were randomized to undergo either conventional imaging (CI) only (arm A) or CI plus 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT (arm B) before radiotherapy. In arm B, positivity rates on CI and 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT for detection of recurrent PCa were determined. Final decisions on whether to offer radiotherapy and whether to include only the prostate bed or also the pelvis in the radiotherapy field were based on 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT findings. Radiotherapy decisions before and after 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT were compared. The statistical significance of decision changes was determined using the Clopper-Pearson (exact) binomial method. Prognostic factors were compared between patients with and without decision changes. Results: All 165 patients enrolled in the study had standard-of-care CI and were initially planned to receive radiotherapy. Sixty-three of 79 (79.7%) patients (median PSA, 0.33 ng/mL) who underwent 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT (arm B) had positive findings. 18F-Fluciclovine PET/CT had a significantly higher positivity rate than CI did for the whole body (79.7% vs. 13.9%; P < 0.001), prostate bed (69.6% vs. 5.1%; P < 0.001), and pelvic lymph nodes (38.0% vs. 10.1%; P < 0.001). Twenty-eight of 79 (35.4%) patients had the overall radiotherapy decision changed after 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT; in 4 of 79 (5.1%), the decision to use radiotherapy was withdrawn because of extrapelvic disease detected on 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT. In 24 of 75 (32.0%) patients with a final decision to undergo radiotherapy, the radiotherapy field was changed. Changes in overall radiotherapy decisions and radiotherapy fields were statistically significant (P < 0.001). Overall, the mean PSA at PET was significantly different between patients with and without radiotherapy decision changes (P = 0.033). Conclusion: 18F-Fluciclovine PET/CT significantly altered salvage radiotherapy decisions in patients with recurrent PCa after prostatectomy. Further analysis to determine the impact of 18F-fluciclovine PET/CT guidance on clinical outcomes after radiotherapy is in progress.
Authors: Philip Cornford; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Erik Briers; Thomas Van den Broeck; Marcus G Cumberbatch; Maria De Santis; Stefano Fanti; Nicola Fossati; Giorgio Gandaglia; Silke Gillessen; Nikolaos Grivas; Jeremy Grummet; Ann M Henry; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Thomas B Lam; Michael Lardas; Matthew Liew; Malcolm D Mason; Lisa Moris; Daniela E Oprea-Lager; Henk G van der Poel; Olivier Rouvière; Ivo G Schoots; Derya Tilki; Thomas Wiegel; Peter-Paul M Willemse; Nicolas Mottet Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: James L Mohler; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Andrew J Armstrong; Anthony V D'Amico; Brian J Davis; Tanya Dorff; James A Eastham; Charles A Enke; Thomas A Farrington; Celestia S Higano; Eric Mark Horwitz; Michael Hurwitz; Joseph E Ippolito; Christopher J Kane; Michael R Kuettel; Joshua M Lang; Jesse McKenney; George Netto; David F Penson; Elizabeth R Plimack; Julio M Pow-Sang; Thomas J Pugh; Sylvia Richey; Mack Roach; Stan Rosenfeld; Edward Schaeffer; Ahmad Shabsigh; Eric J Small; Daniel E Spratt; Sandy Srinivas; Jonathan Tward; Dorothy A Shead; Deborah A Freedman-Cass Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Abhishek A Solanki; Bital Savir-Baruch; Stanley L Liauw; Jeff Michalski; Jonathan D Tward; Neha Vapiwala; Eugene J Teoh Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-05-25
Authors: Oluwaseun A Odewole; Funmilayo I Tade; Peter T Nieh; Bital Savir-Baruch; Ashesh B Jani; Viraj A Master; Peter J Rossi; Raghuveer K Halkar; Adeboye O Osunkoya; Oladunni Akin-Akintayo; Chao Zhang; Zhengjia Chen; Mark M Goodman; David M Schuster Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-04-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Andrew J Stephenson; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan; Thomas M Pisansky; Kevin M Slawin; Eric A Klein; Mitchell S Anscher; Jeff M Michalski; Howard M Sandler; Daniel W Lin; Jeffrey D Forman; Michael J Zelefsky; Larry L Kestin; Claus G Roehrborn; Charles N Catton; Theodore L DeWeese; Stanley L Liauw; Richard K Valicenti; Deborah A Kuban; Alan Pollack Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-05-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Christopher J Kane; Christopher L Amling; Peter A S Johnstone; Nali Pak; Raymond S Lance; J Brantley Thrasher; John P Foley; Robert H Riffenburgh; Judd W Moul Journal: Urology Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Louise Emmett; Reuben Tang; Rohan Nandurkar; George Hruby; Paul Roach; Jo Anne Watts; Thomas Cusick; Andrew Kneebone; Bao Ho; Lyn Chan; Pim J van Leeuwen; Matthijs J Scheltema; Andrew Nguyen; Charlotte Yin; Andrew Scott; Colin Tang; Michael McCarthy; Karen Fullard; Matthew Roberts; Roslyn Francis; Phillip Stricker Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ashesh B Jani; Eduard Schreibmann; Subir Goyal; Raghuveer Halkar; Bruce Hershatter; Peter J Rossi; Joseph W Shelton; Pretesh R Patel; Karen M Xu; Mark Goodman; Viraj A Master; Shreyas S Joshi; Omer Kucuk; Bradley C Carthon; Mehmet A Bilen; Olayinka A Abiodun-Ojo; Akinyemi A Akintayo; Vishal R Dhere; David M Schuster Journal: Lancet Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 79.321