Ao Liu1, Miao Zhang2, Hai Huang1, Chuanjie Zhang1, Xiaohao Ruan1, Wenhao Lin1, Biao Li2, Lu Chen1, Danfeng Xu1. 1. Department of Urinary Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of 18F-PSMA-1007 positron emission tomography (PSMA PET)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) imaging in patients with suspected or defined prostate cancer. METHODS: In the pilot study, we retrospectively investigated 62 patients who underwent PSMA-PET/MRI for suspected or defined PCa between June 2019 and June 2020. Patients were grouped into three subgroups: (1) suspected PCa without histological evidence, (2) primary PCa, (3) biochemical recurrent prostate cancer (BRPCa). Two nuclear physicians independently interpreted the results of PSMA-PET/MRI. Management strategies before PSMA-PET/MRI were retrospectively reported, and the management strategy was re-evaluated for each patient considering the PSMA-PET/MRI result. The changes in strategies were recorded. Besides, the correlation between prostate specific antigen (PSA) level and management changes was also accessed by Fisher exact test, and two-side p < 0.05 was assumed as statistical significance. RESULTS: There were 28 patients in the suspected PCa group (group 1), 12 in the primary PCa group (group 2), and 22 in the BRPCa group (group 3). Overall, the intended decisions were changed in 26 (41.9%) of 62 patients after PSMA-PET/MRI, including 11/28 (39.3%) in suspected PCa group, 1/12 (8.4%) in primary PCa group, and 14/24 (63.6%) in BCR group. In group 1, the main impact on subsequent management included decreased active surveillance (from 20 to 9) and increased prostate biopsy (from 8 to 19). PSA levels were not significantly associated with management changes in suspected PCa patients (p = 0.865). In group 2, the main impact on subsequent management included decreased radical surgery (from 8 to 7), and multimodal therapy appearance (n = 1). Only in the category of PSA levels of ≥20 ng/ml, the management of primary PCa was changed. In group 3, the main impact on subsequent management included decreased salvage radiotherapy (from 5 to 2), increased systemic therapy (from 6 to 7), and increased multimodal therapy (from 11 to 13). The highest proportion of management changes occurred in BCR patients with 0.5≤PSA<1 ng/ml. CONCLUSION: From our preliminary experience, PSMA-PET/MRI may be a valued tool for defining PCa lesions and changing management. The biggest impact of management intent was in patients with BRPCa, especially in patients with 0.5≤PSA<1 ng/ml. However, further studies are needed to confirm our pilot findings.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of 18F-PSMA-1007 positron emission tomography (PSMA PET)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) imaging in patients with suspected or defined prostate cancer. METHODS: In the pilot study, we retrospectively investigated 62 patients who underwent PSMA-PET/MRI for suspected or defined PCa between June 2019 and June 2020. Patients were grouped into three subgroups: (1) suspected PCa without histological evidence, (2) primary PCa, (3) biochemical recurrent prostate cancer (BRPCa). Two nuclear physicians independently interpreted the results of PSMA-PET/MRI. Management strategies before PSMA-PET/MRI were retrospectively reported, and the management strategy was re-evaluated for each patient considering the PSMA-PET/MRI result. The changes in strategies were recorded. Besides, the correlation between prostate specific antigen (PSA) level and management changes was also accessed by Fisher exact test, and two-side p < 0.05 was assumed as statistical significance. RESULTS: There were 28 patients in the suspected PCa group (group 1), 12 in the primary PCa group (group 2), and 22 in the BRPCa group (group 3). Overall, the intended decisions were changed in 26 (41.9%) of 62 patients after PSMA-PET/MRI, including 11/28 (39.3%) in suspected PCa group, 1/12 (8.4%) in primary PCa group, and 14/24 (63.6%) in BCR group. In group 1, the main impact on subsequent management included decreased active surveillance (from 20 to 9) and increased prostate biopsy (from 8 to 19). PSA levels were not significantly associated with management changes in suspected PCa patients (p = 0.865). In group 2, the main impact on subsequent management included decreased radical surgery (from 8 to 7), and multimodal therapy appearance (n = 1). Only in the category of PSA levels of ≥20 ng/ml, the management of primary PCa was changed. In group 3, the main impact on subsequent management included decreased salvage radiotherapy (from 5 to 2), increased systemic therapy (from 6 to 7), and increased multimodal therapy (from 11 to 13). The highest proportion of management changes occurred in BCR patients with 0.5≤PSA<1 ng/ml. CONCLUSION: From our preliminary experience, PSMA-PET/MRI may be a valued tool for defining PCa lesions and changing management. The biggest impact of management intent was in patients with BRPCa, especially in patients with 0.5≤PSA<1 ng/ml. However, further studies are needed to confirm our pilot findings.
Authors: Thomas A Hope; Rahul Aggarwal; Bryant Chee; Dora Tao; Kirsten L Greene; Matthew R Cooperberg; Felix Feng; Albert Chang; Charles J Ryan; Eric J Small; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Helle D Zacho; Julie B Nielsen; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Uwe Haberkorn; Nandita deSouza; Katja De Paepe; Katja Dettmann; Niels C Langkilde; Christian Haarmark; Rune V Fisker; Dennis T Arp; Jesper Carl; Jørgen B Jensen; Lars J Petersen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-06-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Sven Perner; Matthias D Hofer; Robert Kim; Rajal B Shah; Haojie Li; Peter Möller; Richard E Hautmann; Juergen E Gschwend; Rainer Kuefer; Mark A Rubin Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2007-02-22 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Masood A Khan; H Ballentine Carter; Jonathan I Epstein; Michael C Miller; Patricia Landis; Patrick W Walsh; Alan W Partin; Robert W Veltri Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Frederik L Giesel; B Hadaschik; J Cardinale; J Radtke; M Vinsensia; W Lehnert; C Kesch; Y Tolstov; S Singer; N Grabe; S Duensing; M Schäfer; O C Neels; W Mier; U Haberkorn; K Kopka; C Kratochwil Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-11-26 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Antti S Rannikko; Marcelo Borghi; Valeria Panebianco; Lance A Mynderse; Markku H Vaarala; Alberto Briganti; Lars Budäus; Giles Hellawell; Richard G Hindley; Monique J Roobol; Scott Eggener; Maneesh Ghei; Arnauld Villers; Franck Bladou; Geert M Villeirs; Jaspal Virdi; Silvan Boxler; Grégoire Robert; Paras B Singh; Wulphert Venderink; Boris A Hadaschik; Alain Ruffion; Jim C Hu; Daniel Margolis; Sébastien Crouzet; Laurence Klotz; Samir S Taneja; Peter Pinto; Inderbir Gill; Clare Allen; Francesco Giganti; Alex Freeman; Stephen Morris; Shonit Punwani; Norman R Williams; Chris Brew-Graves; Jonathan Deeks; Yemisi Takwoingi; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-03-18 Impact factor: 176.079
Authors: Florian Sterzing; Clemens Kratochwil; Hannah Fiedler; Sonja Katayama; Gregor Habl; Klaus Kopka; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Jürgen Debus; Uwe Haberkorn; Frederik L Giesel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 9.236