Evyn G Arnfield1,2, Paul A Thomas3,4, Matthew J Roberts5,6,7, Anita M Pelecanos8, Stuart C Ramsay3,9, Charles Y Lin4,10, Melissa J Latter3,4, Peter L Garcia3, David A Pattison3,4. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine & Specialised PET Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. evyn.arnfield@gmail.com. 2. Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. evyn.arnfield@gmail.com. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine & Specialised PET Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. 4. Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 5. Department of Urology, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. 6. Department of Urology, Redcliffe Hospital, Redcliffe, Australia. 7. Centre for Clinical Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 8. Statistics Unit, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia. 9. School of Medicine, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia. 10. Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: [18F]PSMA-1007 offers advantages of low urinary tracer excretion and theoretical improved spatial resolution for imaging prostate cancer. However, non-specific bone lesions (NSBLs), defined as mild to moderate focal bone uptake without a typical morphological correlate on CT, are a common finding on [18F]PSMA-1007 PET/CT. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients with [18F]PSMA-1007 avid NSBLs, to determine whether patients with NSBLs represent a higher risk clinical cohort, and to determine whether SUVmax can be used as a classifier of bone metastasis. METHODS: A retrospective audit of 214 men with prostate cancer was performed to investigate the clinical outcomes of [18F]PSMA-1007 avid NSBLs according to defined criteria. We also compared the serum PSA, Gleason score, and uptake time of patients with [18F]PSMA-1007 avid NSBLs to patients without [18F]PSMA-1007 avid bone lesions. Finally, we analysed an SUVmax threshold to identify bone metastases using ROC curve analysis. RESULTS: Ninety-four of 214 patients (43.9%) demonstrated at least one NSBL. No [18F]PSMA-1007 avid NSBLs met criteria for a likely malignant or definitely malignant lesion after a median 15.8-month follow-up interval (11.9% definitely benign, 50.3% likely benign, and 37.7% equivocal). There were no statistically significant differences in serum PSA, Gleason score, and uptake time between patients with [18F]PSMA-1007 avid NSBLs and those without [18F]PSMA-1007 avid bone lesions. All NSBLs with adequate follow-up had SUVmax ≤ 11.1. The value of the highest SUVmax distinguished between NSBLs and definite prostate cancer bone metastases, whereby an SUVmax threshold of ≥ 7.2 maximized the Youden's index. CONCLUSION: [18F]PSMA-1007 avid NSBLs rarely represent prostate cancer bone metastases. When identified in the absence of definite metastatic disease elsewhere, it is appropriate to classify those with SUVmax < 7.2 as likely benign. NSBLs with SUVmax 7.2-11.1 may be classified as equivocal or metastatic, with patient clinical risk factors, scan appearance, and potential management implications used to guide interpretation.
PURPOSE: [18F]PSMA-1007 offers advantages of low urinary tracer excretion and theoretical improved spatial resolution for imaging prostate cancer. However, non-specific bone lesions (NSBLs), defined as mild to moderate focal bone uptake without a typical morphological correlate on CT, are a common finding on [18F]PSMA-1007 PET/CT. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients with [18F]PSMA-1007 avid NSBLs, to determine whether patients with NSBLs represent a higher risk clinical cohort, and to determine whether SUVmax can be used as a classifier of bone metastasis. METHODS: A retrospective audit of 214 men with prostate cancer was performed to investigate the clinical outcomes of [18F]PSMA-1007 avid NSBLs according to defined criteria. We also compared the serum PSA, Gleason score, and uptake time of patients with [18F]PSMA-1007 avid NSBLs to patients without [18F]PSMA-1007 avid bone lesions. Finally, we analysed an SUVmax threshold to identify bone metastases using ROC curve analysis. RESULTS: Ninety-four of 214 patients (43.9%) demonstrated at least one NSBL. No [18F]PSMA-1007 avid NSBLs met criteria for a likely malignant or definitely malignant lesion after a median 15.8-month follow-up interval (11.9% definitely benign, 50.3% likely benign, and 37.7% equivocal). There were no statistically significant differences in serum PSA, Gleason score, and uptake time between patients with [18F]PSMA-1007 avid NSBLs and those without [18F]PSMA-1007 avid bone lesions. All NSBLs with adequate follow-up had SUVmax ≤ 11.1. The value of the highest SUVmax distinguished between NSBLs and definite prostate cancer bone metastases, whereby an SUVmax threshold of ≥ 7.2 maximized the Youden's index. CONCLUSION: [18F]PSMA-1007 avid NSBLs rarely represent prostate cancer bone metastases. When identified in the absence of definite metastatic disease elsewhere, it is appropriate to classify those with SUVmax < 7.2 as likely benign. NSBLs with SUVmax 7.2-11.1 may be classified as equivocal or metastatic, with patient clinical risk factors, scan appearance, and potential management implications used to guide interpretation.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone metastases; Prostate cancer; [18F]PSMA-1007 PET
Authors: Wolfgang P Fendler; Matthias Eiber; Mohsen Beheshti; Jamshed Bomanji; Francesco Ceci; Steven Cho; Frederik Giesel; Uwe Haberkorn; Thomas A Hope; Klaus Kopka; Bernd J Krause; Felix M Mottaghy; Heiko Schöder; John Sunderland; Simon Wan; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Stefano Fanti; Ken Herrmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Niall Fennessy; Jonathan Lee; Jane Shin; Bao Ho; Syed Aman Ali; Royce Paschkewitz; Louise Emmett Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-06-17 Impact factor: 1.735
Authors: Christian Uprimny; Steffen Bayerschmidt; Alexander Stephan Kroiss; Josef Fritz; Bernhard Nilica; Anna Svirydenka; Clemens Decristoforo; Gianpaolo di Santo; Elisabeth von Guggenberg; Wolfgang Horninger; Irene Johanna Virgolini Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Thorsten Derlin; Desiree Weiberg; Christoph von Klot; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Christoph Henkenberens; Tobias L Ross; Hans Christiansen; Axel S Merseburger; Frank M Bengel Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-03-24 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ian Alberts; Svenja Elizabeth Seide; Clemens Mingels; Karl Peter Bohn; Kuangyu Shi; Helle D Zacho; Axel Rominger; Ali Afshar-Oromieh Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Kambiz Rahbar; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Robert Seifert; Stefan Wagner; Michael Schäfers; Martin Bögemann; Matthias Weckesser Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-07-20 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Melissa E Rodnick; Carina Sollert; Daniela Stark; Mara Clark; Andrew Katsifis; Brian G Hockley; D Christian Parr; Jens Frigell; Bradford D Henderson; Monica Abghari-Gerst; Morand R Piert; Michael J Fulham; Stefan Eberl; Katherine Gagnon; Peter J H Scott Journal: EJNMMI Radiopharm Chem Date: 2020-11-12
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
Authors: Venkata Avinash Chikatamarla; Satomi Okano; Peter Jenvey; Alexander Ansaldo; Matthew J Roberts; Stuart C Ramsay; Paul A Thomas; David A Pattison Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2021-12-20 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Bernd Vollnberg; Ian Alberts; Vera Genitsch; Axel Rominger; Ali Afshar-Oromieh Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-04-28 Impact factor: 10.057