Maurits Wondergem1, Friso M van der Zant2, Wouter A M Broos2, Remco J J Knol2. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Noordwest Ziekenhuisgroep, Alkmaar, The Netherlands m.wondergem@nki.nl. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Noordwest Ziekenhuisgroep, Alkmaar, The Netherlands.
Abstract
Over 20 different prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeting radiopharmaceuticals for both imaging and therapy have been synthesized. Although variability in biodistribution and affinity for binding to the PSMA receptor is known to exist between different PSMA-targeting radiopharmaceuticals, little is known about the clinical implications of this variability. Therefore, this study analyzed differences in interreader agreement and detection rate between 2 regularly used 18F-labeled PSMA receptor-targeting radiopharmaceuticals: 18F-DCFPyL and 18F-PSMA-1007. Methods: One hundred twenty consecutive patients scanned with 18F-PSMA-1007 were match-paired with 120 patients scanned with 18F-DCFPyL. All 240 PET/CT scans were reviewed by 2 readers and scored according to the criteria of the PSMA Reporting and Data System. Interreader agreement and the detection rate for suspected lesions were scored for different anatomic locations such as the prostate, prostatic fossa, lymph nodes, and bone. Results: Great equality was found between 18F-DCFPyL and 18F-PSMA-1007; however, some clinically relevant and statistically significant differences were observed. 18F-PSMA-1007 detected suspected prostatic or prostatic fossa lesions in a higher proportion of patients and especially in the subcohort scanned for biochemical recurrence. 18F-DCFPyL and 18F-PSMA-1007 showed an equal ability to detect suspected lymph nodes, although interreader agreement for 18F-DCFPyL was higher. 18F-DCFPyL showed fewer equivocal skeletal lesions and higher interreader agreement on skeletal lesions. Most of the equivocal lesions found with 18F-PSMA-1007 at least were determined to be of nonmetastatic origin. Conclusion: Clinically relevant differences, which may account for diagnostic dilemmas, were observed between 18F-DCFPyL and 18F-PSMA-1007. Those findings encourage further studies, as they may have consequences for selection of the proper PSMA-targeting radiopharmaceutical.
Over 20 different prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeting radiopharmaceuticals for both imaging and therapy have been synthesized. Although variability in biodistribution and affinity for binding to the PSMA receptor is known to exist between different PSMA-targeting radiopharmaceuticals, little is known about the clinical implications of this variability. Therefore, this study analyzed differences in interreader agreement and detection rate between 2 regularly used 18F-labeled PSMA receptor-targeting radiopharmaceuticals: 18F-DCFPyL and 18F-PSMA-1007. Methods: One hundred twenty consecutive patients scanned with 18F-PSMA-1007 were match-paired with 120 patients scanned with 18F-DCFPyL. All 240 PET/CT scans were reviewed by 2 readers and scored according to the criteria of the PSMA Reporting and Data System. Interreader agreement and the detection rate for suspected lesions were scored for different anatomic locations such as the prostate, prostatic fossa, lymph nodes, and bone. Results: Great equality was found between 18F-DCFPyL and 18F-PSMA-1007; however, some clinically relevant and statistically significant differences were observed. 18F-PSMA-1007 detected suspected prostatic or prostatic fossa lesions in a higher proportion of patients and especially in the subcohort scanned for biochemical recurrence. 18F-DCFPyL and 18F-PSMA-1007 showed an equal ability to detect suspected lymph nodes, although interreader agreement for 18F-DCFPyL was higher. 18F-DCFPyL showed fewer equivocal skeletal lesions and higher interreader agreement on skeletal lesions. Most of the equivocal lesions found with 18F-PSMA-1007 at least were determined to be of nonmetastatic origin. Conclusion: Clinically relevant differences, which may account for diagnostic dilemmas, were observed between 18F-DCFPyL and 18F-PSMA-1007. Those findings encourage further studies, as they may have consequences for selection of the proper PSMA-targeting radiopharmaceutical.
Authors: Wietske I Luining; Matthijs C F Cysouw; Dennie Meijer; N Harry Hendrikse; Ronald Boellaard; André N Vis; Daniela E Oprea-Lager Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-02-24 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Sarah Piron; Jeroen Verhoeven; Jan Courtyn; Ken Kersemans; Benedicte Descamps; Leen Pieters; Anne Vral; Christian Vanhove; Filip De Vos Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-09-21 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Patrick W Mihatsch; Matthias Beissert; Martin G Pomper; Thorsten A Bley; Anna K Seitz; Hubert Kübler; Andreas K Buck; Steven P Rowe; Sebastian E Serfling; Philipp E Hartrampf; Rudolf A Werner Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-01-06 Impact factor: 6.639