Aloÿse Fourquet1, Adrian Rosenberg1, Esther Mena1, Joanna J Shih2, Baris Turkbey1, Maxime Blain3, Ethan Bergvall1, Frank Lin1, Stephen Adler4, Ilhan Lim5, Ravi A Madan6, Fatima Karzai6, James L Gulley6, William L Dahut6, Bradford J Wood3, Richard Chang3, Elliot Levy3, Peter L Choyke1, Liza Lindenberg7,8. 1. Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 2. Division of Cancer treatment and Diagnosis: Biometric Research Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 3. Center for Interventional Oncology, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 4. Clinical Research Directorate, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Korea Cancer Center Hospital, Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences, Seoul, Korea. 6. Genitourinary Malignancies Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; and. 7. Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; liza.lindenberg@nih.gov. 8. F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland.
Abstract
18F-DCFPyL, 18F-sodium fluoride (18F-NaF), and 18F-FDG PET/CT were compared in a prospective cohort of men with metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: Sixty-seven men (group 1) with documented metastatic PCa underwent 18F-DCFPyL and 18F-NaF PET/CT and a subgroup of 30 men (group 2) underwent additional imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT. The tracers were compared for their detection rates, imaging concordance, associations with prostate-specific antigen (PSA), treatment at the time of imaging, and castration status. Results: Overall, 61 men had metastatic disease detected on one or more scans, and 6 men had no disease uptake on any of the PET/CT scans (and were subsequently excluded from the analysis). In group 1, 18F-NaF detected significantly more metastatic lesions than 18F-DCFPyL (median of 3 lesions vs. 2, P = 0.001) even after eliminating benign causes of 18F-NaF uptake. This difference was particularly clear for men receiving treatment (P = 0.005) or who were castration-resistant (P = 0.014). The median percentage of bone lesions that were concordant on 18F-DCFPyL and 18F-NaF was 50%. In group 2, 18F-DCFPyL detected more lesions than 18F-FDG (median of 5 lesions vs. 2, P = 0.0003), regardless of PSA level, castration status, or treatment. The median percentage of lesions that were concordant on 18F-DCFPyL and 18F-FDG was 22.2%. This percentage was slightly higher for castration-resistant than castration-sensitive men (P = 0.048). Conclusion: 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT is the most versatile of the 3 PET agents for metastatic PCa; however, 18F-NaF detects more bone metastases. Imaging reveals substantial tumor heterogeneity with only 50% concordance between 18F-DCFPyL and 18F-NaF and 22% concordance for 18F-DCFPyL and 18F-FDG. These findings indicate considerable phenotypic differences among metastatic lesions.
18F-DCFPyL, 18F-sodium fluoride (18F-NaF), and 18F-FDG PET/CT were compared in a prospective cohort of men with metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: Sixty-seven men (group 1) with documented metastatic PCa underwent 18F-DCFPyL and 18F-NaF PET/CT and a subgroup of 30 men (group 2) underwent additional imaging with 18F-FDG PET/CT. The tracers were compared for their detection rates, imaging concordance, associations with prostate-specific antigen (PSA), treatment at the time of imaging, and castration status. Results: Overall, 61 men had metastatic disease detected on one or more scans, and 6 men had no disease uptake on any of the PET/CT scans (and were subsequently excluded from the analysis). In group 1, 18F-NaF detected significantly more metastatic lesions than 18F-DCFPyL (median of 3 lesions vs. 2, P = 0.001) even after eliminating benign causes of 18F-NaF uptake. This difference was particularly clear for men receiving treatment (P = 0.005) or who were castration-resistant (P = 0.014). The median percentage of bone lesions that were concordant on 18F-DCFPyL and 18F-NaF was 50%. In group 2, 18F-DCFPyL detected more lesions than 18F-FDG (median of 5 lesions vs. 2, P = 0.0003), regardless of PSA level, castration status, or treatment. The median percentage of lesions that were concordant on 18F-DCFPyL and 18F-FDG was 22.2%. This percentage was slightly higher for castration-resistant than castration-sensitive men (P = 0.048). Conclusion: 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT is the most versatile of the 3 PET agents for metastatic PCa; however, 18F-NaF detects more bone metastases. Imaging reveals substantial tumor heterogeneity with only 50% concordance between 18F-DCFPyL and 18F-NaF and 22% concordance for 18F-DCFPyL and 18F-FDG. These findings indicate considerable phenotypic differences among metastatic lesions.