Yonaton Zarbiv1, Yehudit Peerless1, Marc Wygoda1, Marina Orevi2, Karen Meir3, Ofer N Gofrit4, Vladimir Yutkin4, Stephen Frank1. 1. Sharett Institute of Oncology, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel. 3. Department of Pathology, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel. 4. Department of Urology, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A recent prospective trial, the proPSMA study, showed superior specificity and sensitivity of Positron emission tomography (PET) - Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) imaging compared standard Computerized tomography (CT) and bone scan for staging of recently diagnosed high-risk local prostate carcinoma for curative intent treatment. AIM: To share our experience with false-positive PET PSMA scans in newly diagnosed intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND RESULTS: Here, we report a series of eight patients who underwent systemic staging using PET-PSMA with false-positive results who were ultimately treated with definitive radiation or surgery. Of the eight patients, two patients were diagnosed with favorable intermediate disease, four with unfavorable intermediate risk, and two with high-risk disease. Seven of eight were shown to have false-positive bone uptake, one patient had uptake in lung nodules. Three patients underwent bone biopsy and proven benign. The rest of the patients were proven as non-metastatic radiologically by repeat PSMA, CT, or Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). All subsequently preceded to definitive localized treatment and remain disease free as of this study. CONCLUSION: This study emphasizes the importance of prudent clinical judgment when utilizing this highly sensitive imaging technique.
BACKGROUND: A recent prospective trial, the proPSMA study, showed superior specificity and sensitivity of Positron emission tomography (PET) - Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) imaging compared standard Computerized tomography (CT) and bone scan for staging of recently diagnosed high-risk local prostate carcinoma for curative intent treatment. AIM: To share our experience with false-positive PET PSMA scans in newly diagnosed intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS AND RESULTS: Here, we report a series of eight patients who underwent systemic staging using PET-PSMA with false-positive results who were ultimately treated with definitive radiation or surgery. Of the eight patients, two patients were diagnosed with favorable intermediate disease, four with unfavorable intermediate risk, and two with high-risk disease. Seven of eight were shown to have false-positive bone uptake, one patient had uptake in lung nodules. Three patients underwent bone biopsy and proven benign. The rest of the patients were proven as non-metastatic radiologically by repeat PSMA, CT, or Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). All subsequently preceded to definitive localized treatment and remain disease free as of this study. CONCLUSION: This study emphasizes the importance of prudent clinical judgment when utilizing this highly sensitive imaging technique.
Authors: Ludwike W M van Kalmthout; Harm H E van Melick; Jules Lavalaye; Richard P Meijer; Anko Kooistra; John M H de Klerk; Arthur J A T Braat; H Peter Kaldeway; Peter C de Bruin; Bart de Keizer; Marnix G E H Lam Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-09-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Thabo Lengana; Ismaheel O Lawal; Tebatso G Boshomane; Gbenga O Popoola; Kgomotso M G Mokoala; Evelyn Moshokoa; Alex Maes; Neo P Mokgoro; Christophe Van de Wiele; Mariza Vorster; Mike M Sathekge Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2018-07-21 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Justin E Bekelman; R Bryan Rumble; Ronald C Chen; Thomas M Pisansky; Antonio Finelli; Andrew Feifer; Paul L Nguyen; D Andrew Loblaw; Scott T Tagawa; Silke Gillessen; Todd M Morgan; Glenn Liu; Neha Vapiwala; John J Haluschak; Andrew Stephenson; Karim Touijer; Terry Kungel; Stephen J Freedland Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sara Sheikhbahaei; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Matthias Eiber; Lilja B Solnes; Mehrbod S Javadi; Ashley E Ross; Kenneth J Pienta; Mohamad E Allaf; Uwe Haberkorn; Martin G Pomper; Michael A Gorin; Steven P Rowe Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Yonaton Zarbiv; Yehudit Peerless; Marc Wygoda; Marina Orevi; Karen Meir; Ofer N Gofrit; Vladimir Yutkin; Stephen Frank Journal: Cancer Rep (Hoboken) Date: 2021-05-02
Authors: Michael S Hofman; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Roslyn J Francis; Colin Tang; Ian Vela; Paul Thomas; Natalie Rutherford; Jarad M Martin; Mark Frydenberg; Ramdave Shakher; Lih-Ming Wong; Kim Taubman; Sze Ting Lee; Edward Hsiao; Paul Roach; Michelle Nottage; Ian Kirkwood; Dickon Hayne; Emma Link; Petra Marusic; Anetta Matera; Alan Herschtal; Amir Iravani; Rodney J Hicks; Scott Williams; Declan G Murphy Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-03-22 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Yonaton Zarbiv; Yehudit Peerless; Marc Wygoda; Marina Orevi; Karen Meir; Ofer N Gofrit; Vladimir Yutkin; Stephen Frank Journal: Cancer Rep (Hoboken) Date: 2021-05-02