Mikhail Kesler1, Ido Druckmann2, Charles Levine1, Jonathan Kuten1, Ofer Yossepowitch3,4, Einat Even-Sapir1,4. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, 6 Weizmann St., Tel Aviv 6423906, Israel. 2. Department of Radiology-Musculoskeletal Imaging Unit, Imaging Division, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv 6423906, Israel. 3. Department of Urology, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv 6423906, Israel. 4. Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel.
Abstract
Bone metastases from prostate cancer (PCa) often show an increase in density on computed tomography (CT) after successful androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Density may be reduced, however, as the disease progresses or, contrarily, when disease is no longer active. The current study investigated the role of 68Ga-PSMA-11 positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in differentiating between these two conditions. METHODS: The study cohort included 15 PCa patients with sclerotic/blastic bone metastasis in whom reduction in bone density of metastasis was noted on follow-up 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT after ADT. Each patient had two PET/CT scans. Prior to the first scan, six patients were castration naïve and nine patients were already treated. All patients had ADT between the two PET/CT scans. PET parameters (SUVmax and tumor-to-background ratio), and CT parameters (HUmax) were determined and compared for each lesion on both scans. Patient's response was based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and appearance of new lesions. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate normal distribution of the continuous variables. RESULTS: Post-ADT reduction in bone density was identified in 37 lesions. The mean HUmax was 883.9 ± 175.1 on the first scan and 395.6 ± 157.1 on the second scan (p < 0.001). Twenty-one of the 37 lesions showed no increased tracer uptake on the second PET/CT scan raising the likelihood of a response. The other 16 lesions were associated with increased uptake suggestive of an active resistant disease. Bone density was not different in lesions that no longer showed an increased uptake as compared with those that did. Seven of the study patients responded to therapy, and none of the 16 lesions found in these patients showed increased 68Ga-PSMA-11 uptake. In eight patients with progressive disease, all 12 lesions in five of them showed increased 68Ga-PSMA-11 uptake, there was mixed response in two patients (having two lesions with increased uptake and one without) and although all three lesions no longer showed an increased uptake, new lesions were detected in the eighth patient. CONCLUSION: A decrease in density of bone lesions may reflect clinical progression, or contrarily, a response to therapy in patients with PCa and skeletal involvement treated with ADT. Uptake of 68Ga-PSMA-11 may separate between these two vastly opposing conditions.
Bone metastases from prostate cancer (PCa) often show an increase in density on computed tomography (CT) after successful androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Density may be reduced, however, as the disease progresses or, contrarily, when disease is no longer active. The current study investigated the role of 68Ga-PSMA-11 positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in differentiating between these two conditions. METHODS: The study cohort included 15 PCa patients with sclerotic/blastic bone metastasis in whom reduction in bone density of metastasis was noted on follow-up 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT after ADT. Each patient had two PET/CT scans. Prior to the first scan, six patients were castration naïve and nine patients were already treated. All patients had ADT between the two PET/CT scans. PET parameters (SUVmax and tumor-to-background ratio), and CT parameters (HUmax) were determined and compared for each lesion on both scans. Patient's response was based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and appearance of new lesions. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate normal distribution of the continuous variables. RESULTS: Post-ADT reduction in bone density was identified in 37 lesions. The mean HUmax was 883.9 ± 175.1 on the first scan and 395.6 ± 157.1 on the second scan (p < 0.001). Twenty-one of the 37 lesions showed no increased tracer uptake on the second PET/CT scan raising the likelihood of a response. The other 16 lesions were associated with increased uptake suggestive of an active resistant disease. Bone density was not different in lesions that no longer showed an increased uptake as compared with those that did. Seven of the study patients responded to therapy, and none of the 16 lesions found in these patients showed increased 68Ga-PSMA-11 uptake. In eight patients with progressive disease, all 12 lesions in five of them showed increased 68Ga-PSMA-11 uptake, there was mixed response in two patients (having two lesions with increased uptake and one without) and although all three lesions no longer showed an increased uptake, new lesions were detected in the eighth patient. CONCLUSION: A decrease in density of bone lesions may reflect clinical progression, or contrarily, a response to therapy in patients with PCa and skeletal involvement treated with ADT. Uptake of 68Ga-PSMA-11 may separate between these two vastly opposing conditions.
Entities:
Keywords:
68Ga-PSMA; ADT; PET/CT; castration-resistance; prostate cancer
Authors: Ukihide Tateishi; Cristina Gamez; Shaheenah Dawood; Henry W D Yeung; Massimo Cristofanilli; Homer A Macapinlac Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Stephanie A Harmon; Ethan Bergvall; Esther Mena; Joanna H Shih; Stephen Adler; Yolanda McKinney; Sherif Mehralivand; Deborah E Citrin; Anna Couvillon; Ravi A Madan; James L Gulley; Ronnie C Mease; Paula M Jacobs; Martin G Pomper; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; M Liza Lindenberg Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-03-30 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jeremie Calais; Wolfgang P Fendler; Matthias Eiber; Jeannine Gartmann; Fang-I Chu; Nicholas G Nickols; Robert E Reiter; Matthew B Rettig; Leonard S Marks; Thomas E Ahlering; Linda M Huynh; Roger Slavik; Pawan Gupta; Andrew Quon; Martin S Allen-Auerbach; Johannes Czernin; Ken Herrmann Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Howard I Scher; Susan Halabi; Ian Tannock; Michael Morris; Cora N Sternberg; Michael A Carducci; Mario A Eisenberger; Celestia Higano; Glenn J Bubley; Robert Dreicer; Daniel Petrylak; Philip Kantoff; Ethan Basch; William Kevin Kelly; William D Figg; Eric J Small; Tomasz M Beer; George Wilding; Alison Martin; Maha Hussain Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Gurdip K Azad; Benjamin P Taylor; Adrian Green; Ines Sandri; Angela Swampillai; Mark Harries; Hartmut Kristeleit; Janine Mansi; Vicky Goh; Gary J R Cook Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: T Hamaoka; C M Costelloe; J E Madewell; P Liu; D A Berry; R Islam; R L Theriault; G N Hortobagyi; N T Ueno Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-01-26 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Finn Edler von Eyben; Glenn Bauman; Daniel S Kapp; Irene Virgolini; Giovanni Paganelli Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-02-24 Impact factor: 5.923