Introduction: Positron emission tomography/computer tomography (PET/CT) targeting the prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) plays a key role in staging of patients with prostate cancer (PCa). Moreover, it is not only used for the assessment of adequate PSMA expression of PCa cells before PSMA-targeting radioligand therapy (PSMA RLT) but also for re-staging during the course of therapy to evaluate response to treatment. Whereas no established criteria exist for systematic response evaluation so far, recently proposed PSMA PET Progression (PPP) criteria might fill this gap. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of PPP criteria in patients undergoing PSMA RLT and their prognostic implications. Methods: In this retrospective analysis, PSMA PET/CT scans of 46 patients acquired before and after completion of PSMA RLT were analyzed separately by two readers using modified PPP criteria. After interobserver agreement assessment, consensus results (progressive vs. non-progressive disease) were compared in a multivariate cox regression model (endpoint overall survival, OS). Results: Interobserver agreement on modified PPP criteria was substantial (Cohens κ = 0.73) with a concordance in 87% of patients. Median OS of all patients after PSMA RLT (n = 46) was 9.0 [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.8 - 10.2] months. Progression according to modified PPP criteria was found in 32 patients and was a significant (p ≤0.001) prognostic marker for OS with a hazard ratio of 15.5 [95% CI 3.4 - 70.2]. Conclusion: Response assessment in patients undergoing PSMA RLT using modified PPP criteria are reproducible and highly prognostic for OS. Modified PPP criteria should be validated in future prospective trials.
Introduction: Positron emission tomography/computer tomography (PET/CT) targeting the prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) plays a key role in staging of patients with prostate cancer (PCa). Moreover, it is not only used for the assessment of adequate PSMA expression of PCa cells before PSMA-targeting radioligand therapy (PSMA RLT) but also for re-staging during the course of therapy to evaluate response to treatment. Whereas no established criteria exist for systematic response evaluation so far, recently proposed PSMA PET Progression (PPP) criteria might fill this gap. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of PPP criteria in patients undergoing PSMA RLT and their prognostic implications. Methods: In this retrospective analysis, PSMA PET/CT scans of 46 patients acquired before and after completion of PSMA RLT were analyzed separately by two readers using modified PPP criteria. After interobserver agreement assessment, consensus results (progressive vs. non-progressive disease) were compared in a multivariate cox regression model (endpoint overall survival, OS). Results: Interobserver agreement on modified PPP criteria was substantial (Cohens κ = 0.73) with a concordance in 87% of patients. Median OS of all patients after PSMA RLT (n = 46) was 9.0 [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.8 - 10.2] months. Progression according to modified PPP criteria was found in 32 patients and was a significant (p ≤0.001) prognostic marker for OS with a hazard ratio of 15.5 [95% CI 3.4 - 70.2]. Conclusion: Response assessment in patients undergoing PSMA RLT using modified PPP criteria are reproducible and highly prognostic for OS. Modified PPP criteria should be validated in future prospective trials.
Authors: Anna Katharina Seitz; Isabel Rauscher; Bernhard Haller; Markus Krönke; Sophia Luther; Matthias M Heck; Thomas Horn; Jürgen E Gschwend; Markus Schwaiger; Matthias Eiber; Tobias Maurer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Johannes Schindelin; Ignacio Arganda-Carreras; Erwin Frise; Verena Kaynig; Mark Longair; Tobias Pietzsch; Stephan Preibisch; Curtis Rueden; Stephan Saalfeld; Benjamin Schmid; Jean-Yves Tinevez; Daniel James White; Volker Hartenstein; Kevin Eliceiri; Pavel Tomancak; Albert Cardona Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 28.547
Authors: Matthias Eiber; Ken Herrmann; Jeremie Calais; Boris Hadaschik; Frederik L Giesel; Markus Hartenbach; Thomas Hope; Robert Reiter; Tobias Maurer; Wolfgang A Weber; Wolfgang P Fendler Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Andrei Gafita; Marie Bieth; Markus Krönke; Giles Tetteh; Fernando Navarro; Hui Wang; Elisabeth Günther; Bjoern Menze; Wolfgang A Weber; Matthias Eiber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-03-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Sebastian Schmuck; Christoph A von Klot; Christoph Henkenberens; Jan M Sohns; Hans Christiansen; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Tobias L Ross; Frank M Bengel; Thorsten Derlin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Aaron D Falchook; Neil E Martin; Ramsankar Basak; Angela B Smith; Matthew I Milowsky; Ronald C Chen Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2015-10-29 Impact factor: 3.498
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: Mohammad S Sadaghiani; Sara Sheikhbahaei; Rudolf A Werner; Kenneth J Pienta; Martin G Pomper; Michael A Gorin; Lilja B Solnes; Steven P Rowe Journal: Prostate Date: 2022-03-14 Impact factor: 4.012
Authors: Isabel Heidegger; Claudia Kesch; Alexander Kretschmer; Igor Tsaur; Francesco Ceci; Massimo Valerio; Derya Tilki; Giancarlo Marra; Felix Preisser; Christian D Fankhauser; Fabio Zattoni; Peter Chiu; Ignacio Puche-Sanz; Jonathan Olivier; Roderik C N van den Bergh; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Andreas Pircher; Irene Virgolini; Giorgio Gandaglia Journal: Ther Adv Med Oncol Date: 2022-03-05 Impact factor: 8.168