Lindsay S Rowe1,2, Stephanie Harmon3, Adam Horn4, Uma Shankavaram5, Soumyajit Roy6, Holly Ning6, Liza Lindenberg7, Esther Mena7, Deborah E Citrin6, Peter Choyke7, Baris Turkbey7. 1. Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, 10 Center Drive Magnuson Clinical Center, Room B2-3500, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA. Lindsay.rowe@albertahealthservices.ca. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, 11560 University Avenue, Edmonton, AB, T6G 1Z2, Canada. Lindsay.rowe@albertahealthservices.ca. 3. Clinical Research Directorate, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, 10 Center Drive Magnuson Clinical Center, Room B3B69F, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA. 4. Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, 8901 Rockville Pike, USA. 5. Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, 10 Center Drive Magnuson Clinical Center, Room 1002, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA. 6. Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, 10 Center Drive Magnuson Clinical Center, Room B2-3500, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA. 7. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, 10 Center Drive Magnuson Clinical Center, Room B3B69F, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prostate Membrane Specific Antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) have shown high accuracy in identifying recurrent lesions after definitive treatment in prostate cancer (PCa). In this study, we aimed to outline patterns of failure in a group of post-prostatectomy patients who received adjuvant or salvage radiation therapy (PORT) and subsequently experienced biochemical recurrence, using 18F-PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI. METHODS: PCa patients with biochemical failure post-prostatectomy, and no evident site of recurrence on conventional imaging, were enrolled on two prospective trials of first and second generation 18F-PSMA PET agents (18F-DCFBC and 18F-DCFPyL) in combination with MRI between October 2014 and December 2018. The primary aim of our study is to characterize these lesions with respect to their location relative to previous PORT field and received dose. RESULTS: A total of 34 participants underwent 18F-PSMA PET imaging for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy and PORT, with 32/34 found to have 18F-PSMA avid lesions. On 18F-PSMA, 17/32 patients (53.1%) had metastatic disease, 8/32 (25.0%) patients had locoregional recurrences, and 7/32 (21.9%) had local failure in the prostate fossa. On further exploration, we noted 6/7 (86%) of prostate fossa recurrences were in-field and were encompassed by 100% isodose lines, receiving 64.8-72 Gy. One patient had marginal failure encompassed by the 49 Gy isodose. CONCLUSIONS: 18F-PSMA PET imaging demonstrates promise in identifying occult PCa recurrence after PORT. Although distant recurrence was the predominant pattern of failure, in-field recurrence was noted in approximately 1/5th of patients. This should be considered in tailoring radiotherapy practice after prostatectomy. Trial registration www.clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02190279 and NCT03181867. Registered July 12, 2014, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02190279 and June 8 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03181867 .
BACKGROUND: Prostate Membrane Specific Antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) have shown high accuracy in identifying recurrent lesions after definitive treatment in prostate cancer (PCa). In this study, we aimed to outline patterns of failure in a group of post-prostatectomy patients who received adjuvant or salvage radiation therapy (PORT) and subsequently experienced biochemical recurrence, using 18F-PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI. METHODS: PCa patients with biochemical failure post-prostatectomy, and no evident site of recurrence on conventional imaging, were enrolled on two prospective trials of first and second generation 18F-PSMA PET agents (18F-DCFBC and 18F-DCFPyL) in combination with MRI between October 2014 and December 2018. The primary aim of our study is to characterize these lesions with respect to their location relative to previous PORT field and received dose. RESULTS: A total of 34 participants underwent 18F-PSMA PET imaging for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy and PORT, with 32/34 found to have 18F-PSMA avid lesions. On 18F-PSMA, 17/32 patients (53.1%) had metastatic disease, 8/32 (25.0%) patients had locoregional recurrences, and 7/32 (21.9%) had local failure in the prostate fossa. On further exploration, we noted 6/7 (86%) of prostate fossa recurrences were in-field and were encompassed by 100% isodose lines, receiving 64.8-72 Gy. One patient had marginal failure encompassed by the 49 Gy isodose. CONCLUSIONS: 18F-PSMA PET imaging demonstrates promise in identifying occult PCa recurrence after PORT. Although distant recurrence was the predominant pattern of failure, in-field recurrence was noted in approximately 1/5th of patients. This should be considered in tailoring radiotherapy practice after prostatectomy. Trial registration www.clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02190279 and NCT03181867. Registered July 12, 2014, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02190279 and June 8 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03181867 .
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Esther Mena; Liza Lindenberg; Stephen Adler; Sandra Bednarova; Rose Berman; Anita T Ton; Yolanda McKinney; Philip Eclarinal; Craig Hill; George Afari; Sibaprasad Bhattacharyya; Ronnie C Mease; Maria J Merino; Paula M Jacobs; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Martin G Pomper; Peter L Choyke Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Jeremie Calais; Johannes Czernin; Minsong Cao; Amar U Kishan; John V Hegde; Narek Shaverdian; Kiri Sandler; Fang-I Chu; Chris R King; Michael L Steinberg; Isabel Rauscher; Nina-Sophie Schmidt-Hegemann; Thorsten Poeppel; Philipp Hetkamp; Francesco Ceci; Ken Herrmann; Wolfgang P Fendler; Matthias Eiber; Nicholas G Nickols Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Colleen A F Lawton; Jeff Michalski; Issam El-Naqa; Mark K Buyyounouski; W Robert Lee; Cynthia Menard; Elizabeth O'Meara; Seth A Rosenthal; Mark Ritter; Michael Seider Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-10-22 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Johnny Ray Bernard; Steven J Buskirk; Michael G Heckman; Nancy N Diehl; Stephen J Ko; Orlan K Macdonald; Steven E Schild; Thomas M Pisansky Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-05-21 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jeremie Calais; Johannes Czernin; Wolfgang P Fendler; David Elashoff; Nicholas G Nickols Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Nina-Sophie Schmidt-Hegemann; Christian Stief; Tak-Hyun Kim; Chukwuka Eze; Simon Kirste; Iosif Strouthos; Minglun Li; Wolfgang Schultze-Seemann; Harun Ilhan; Wolfgang Peter Fendler; Peter Bartenstein; Anca-Ligia Grosu; Ute Ganswindt; Claus Belka; Philipp T Meyer; Constantinos Zamboglou Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-07-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Frederik L Giesel; Karina Knorr; Fabian Spohn; Leon Will; Tobias Maurer; Paul Flechsig; Oliver Neels; Kilian Schiller; Horacio Amaral; Wolfgang A Weber; Uwe Haberkorn; Markus Schwaiger; Clemens Kratochwil; Peter Choyke; Vasko Kramer; Klaus Kopka; Matthias Eiber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-07-24 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ryan Phillips; William Yue Shi; Matthew Deek; Noura Radwan; Su Jin Lim; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Steven P Rowe; Ashley E Ross; Michael A Gorin; Curtiland Deville; Stephen C Greco; Hailun Wang; Samuel R Denmeade; Channing J Paller; Shirl Dipasquale; Theodore L DeWeese; Daniel Y Song; Hao Wang; Michael A Carducci; Kenneth J Pienta; Martin G Pomper; Adam P Dicker; Mario A Eisenberger; Ash A Alizadeh; Maximilian Diehn; Phuoc T Tran Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 31.777