Mads Ryø Jochumsen1,2,3, Jens Sörensen4,5,6, Lars Poulsen Tolbod4,5, Bodil Ginnerup Pedersen5,7, Jørgen Frøkiær4,5, Michael Borre5,8, Kirsten Bouchelouche4,5. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine & PET-Centre, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 165, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark. madsjoch@rm.dk. 2. Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. madsjoch@rm.dk. 3. Department of Radiology, Viborg Regional Hospital, Viborg, Denmark. madsjoch@rm.dk. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine & PET-Centre, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 165, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark. 5. Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. 6. Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. 7. Department of Radiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 8. Department of Urology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) uptake and tumour blood flow (TBF) correlate with International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade Group (GG) and hence prostate cancer (PCa) aggressiveness. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the potential synergistic benefit of combining the two physiologic parameters for separating significant PCa from insignificant findings. METHODS: From previous studies of [82Rb]Rb positron emission tomography (PET) TBF in PCa, the 43 patients that underwent clinical [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET were selected for this retrospective study. Tumours were delineated on [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET or magnetic resonance imaging. ISUP GG was recorded from 52 lesions. RESULTS: [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and [82Rb]Rb SUVmax correlated moderately with ISUP GG (rho = 0.59 and rho = 0.56, both p < 0.001) and with each other (r = 0.65, p < 0.001). A combined model of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and [82Rb]Rb SUVmax separated ISUP GG > 2 from ISUP GG 1-2 and benign with an area-under-the-curve of 0.85, 96% sensitivity, 74% specificity, and 95% negative predictive value. The combined model performed significantly better than either tracer alone did (p < 0.001), primarily by reducing false negatives from five or six to one (p ≤ 0.025). CONCLUSION: PSMA uptake and TBF provide complementary information about tumour aggressiveness. We suggest that a combined analysis of PSMA uptake and TBF could significantly improve the negative predictive value and allow non-invasive separation of significant from insignificant PCa.
BACKGROUND: Both prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) uptake and tumour blood flow (TBF) correlate with International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade Group (GG) and hence prostate cancer (PCa) aggressiveness. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the potential synergistic benefit of combining the two physiologic parameters for separating significant PCa from insignificant findings. METHODS: From previous studies of [82Rb]Rb positron emission tomography (PET) TBF in PCa, the 43 patients that underwent clinical [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET were selected for this retrospective study. Tumours were delineated on [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET or magnetic resonance imaging. ISUP GG was recorded from 52 lesions. RESULTS: [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and [82Rb]Rb SUVmax correlated moderately with ISUP GG (rho = 0.59 and rho = 0.56, both p < 0.001) and with each other (r = 0.65, p < 0.001). A combined model of [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and [82Rb]Rb SUVmax separated ISUP GG > 2 from ISUP GG 1-2 and benign with an area-under-the-curve of 0.85, 96% sensitivity, 74% specificity, and 95% negative predictive value. The combined model performed significantly better than either tracer alone did (p < 0.001), primarily by reducing false negatives from five or six to one (p ≤ 0.025). CONCLUSION:PSMA uptake and TBF provide complementary information about tumour aggressiveness. We suggest that a combined analysis of PSMA uptake and TBF could significantly improve the negative predictive value and allow non-invasive separation of significant from insignificant PCa.
Authors: Lars P Tolbod; Maria M Nielsen; Bodil G Pedersen; Søren Høyer; Hendrik J Harms; Michael Borre; Per Borghammer; Kirsten Bouchelouche; Jørgen Frøkiær; Jens Sørensen Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-10-20
Authors: K Lehtiö; V Oikonen; T Grönroos; O Eskola; K Kalliokoski; J Bergman; O Solin; R Grénman; P Nuutila; H Minn Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Karen A Kurdziel; William D Figg; Jorge A Carrasquillo; Susan Huebsch; Millie Whatley; David Sellers; Steven K Libutti; James M Pluda; William Dahut; Edward Reed; Stephen L Bacharach Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2003 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: David A Mankoff; Lisa K Dunnwald; Julie R Gralow; Georgiana K Ellis; Aaron Charlop; Thomas J Lawton; Erin K Schubert; Jeffrey Tseng; Robert B Livingston Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: David A Mankoff; Lisa K Dunnwald; Julie R Gralow; Georgiana K Ellis; Erin K Schubert; Jeffrey Tseng; Thomas J Lawton; Hannah M Linden; Robert B Livingston Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Nanda Krak; Jacobus van der Hoeven; Otto Hoekstra; Jos Twisk; Elsken van der Wall; Adriaan Lammertsma Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2008-08-16 Impact factor: 3.488