Niamh M Keegan1, Lisa Bodei2, Michael J Morris3. 1. Genitourinary Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2. Molecular Imaging and Therapy Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. Genitourinary Medical Oncology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: morrism@mskcc.org.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Men with biochemically relapsed prostate cancer face a clinical conundrum. Depending on the detected distribution of disease, treatment goals may range from cure with focal therapy to palliative with systemic therapy to expectant observation. Retrospective studies of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-based imaging demonstrate higher disease detection rates than conventional imaging. OBJECTIVE: This review focuses on available prospective evidence for diagnostic use of PSMA-based imaging to accurately restage recurrent prostate cancer and explores the potential clinical impact, near future uses, and challenges for PSMA-based imaging in this setting. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched for prospective studies with primary, secondary, or exploratory endpoints evaluating PSMA-based imaging for patients with recurrent prostate cancer published in English in the past 10 yrs. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We reviewed 48 prospective studies evaluating the role of PSMA positron emission tomography (PET) in recurrent prostate cancer. These studies establish the diagnostic accuracy and safety of PSMA PET using the 68Ga-PSMA-11 and 18F-DCFPyL radiotracers even at lower prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels (0.5 ≤ PSA < 1.0 ng/m: disease detection rate 51-78%). The use of PSMA PET has been shown to result in changes in management in up to two-thirds of patients. CONCLUSIONS: There is now higher-level regulatory-quality prospective evidence for PSMA-based imaging for the detection of recurrent prostate cancer. There is prospective evidence of superiority over cross-sectional imaging and bone scintigraphy, as well as for the alterations in disease management as a result of PSMA-based imaging. PATIENT SUMMARY: When the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level is rising after primary therapy, prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) is excellent at detecting and localizing prostate cancer, even at low PSA levels. Those who benefit best from treatment modifications based on PSMA PET findings are yet to be defined.
CONTEXT: Men with biochemically relapsed prostate cancer face a clinical conundrum. Depending on the detected distribution of disease, treatment goals may range from cure with focal therapy to palliative with systemic therapy to expectant observation. Retrospective studies of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-based imaging demonstrate higher disease detection rates than conventional imaging. OBJECTIVE: This review focuses on available prospective evidence for diagnostic use of PSMA-based imaging to accurately restage recurrent prostate cancer and explores the potential clinical impact, near future uses, and challenges for PSMA-based imaging in this setting. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched for prospective studies with primary, secondary, or exploratory endpoints evaluating PSMA-based imaging for patients with recurrent prostate cancer published in English in the past 10 yrs. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We reviewed 48 prospective studies evaluating the role of PSMA positron emission tomography (PET) in recurrent prostate cancer. These studies establish the diagnostic accuracy and safety of PSMA PET using the 68Ga-PSMA-11 and 18F-DCFPyL radiotracers even at lower prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels (0.5 ≤ PSA < 1.0 ng/m: disease detection rate 51-78%). The use of PSMA PET has been shown to result in changes in management in up to two-thirds of patients. CONCLUSIONS: There is now higher-level regulatory-quality prospective evidence for PSMA-based imaging for the detection of recurrent prostate cancer. There is prospective evidence of superiority over cross-sectional imaging and bone scintigraphy, as well as for the alterations in disease management as a result of PSMA-based imaging. PATIENT SUMMARY: When the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level is rising after primary therapy, prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) is excellent at detecting and localizing prostate cancer, even at low PSA levels. Those who benefit best from treatment modifications based on PSMA PET findings are yet to be defined.
Authors: Wolfgang Peter Fendler; Jeremie Calais; Martin Allen-Auerbach; Christina Bluemel; Nina Eberhardt; Louise Emmett; Pawan Gupta; Markus Hartenbach; Thomas A Hope; Shozo Okamoto; Christian Helmut Pfob; Thorsten D Pöppel; Christoph Rischpler; Sarah Schwarzenböck; Vanessa Stebner; Marcus Unterrainer; Helle D Zacho; Tobias Maurer; Christian Gratzke; Alexander Crispin; Johannes Czernin; Ken Herrmann; Matthias Eiber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Thomas A Hope; Jeremy Z Goodman; Isabel E Allen; Jeremie Calais; Wolfgang P Fendler; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Howard I Scher; Michael J Morris; Walter M Stadler; Celestia Higano; Ethan Basch; Karim Fizazi; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Tomasz M Beer; Michael A Carducci; Kim N Chi; Paul G Corn; Johann S de Bono; Robert Dreicer; Daniel J George; Elisabeth I Heath; Maha Hussain; Wm Kevin Kelly; Glenn Liu; Christopher Logothetis; David Nanus; Mark N Stein; Dana E Rathkopf; Susan F Slovin; Charles J Ryan; Oliver Sartor; Eric J Small; Matthew Raymond Smith; Cora N Sternberg; Mary-Ellen Taplin; George Wilding; Peter S Nelson; Lawrence H Schwartz; Susan Halabi; Philip W Kantoff; Andrew J Armstrong Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-02-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sebastian Mannweiler; Peter Amersdorfer; Slave Trajanoski; Jonathan A Terrett; David King; Gabor Mehes Journal: Pathol Oncol Res Date: 2008-09-18 Impact factor: 3.201
Authors: Mohsen Beheshti; Reyhaneh Manafi-Farid; Hans Geinitz; Reza Vali; Wolfgang Loidl; Felix M Mottaghy; Werner Langsteger Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-02-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Thomas M Pisansky; Ian M Thompson; Richard K Valicenti; Anthony V D'Amico; Shalini Selvarajah Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-08-08 Impact factor: 7.450
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