Ida Sonni1, Ely R Felker2, Andrew T Lenis3, Anthony E Sisk4, Shadfar Bahri5,6, Martin Allen-Auerbach5,6, Wesley R Armstrong5, Voraparee Suvannarerg2,7, Teeravut Tubtawee2,8, Tristan Grogan9, David Elashoff9, Matthias Eiber5,10, Steven S Raman2, Johannes Czernin5,6,11, Robert E Reiter3,6,11, Jeremie Calais5,6,11. 1. Ahmanson Translational Theranostics Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, California; isonni@mednet.ucla.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, California. 3. Department of Urology, UCLA, Los Angeles, California. 4. Department of Pathology, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, California. 5. Ahmanson Translational Theranostics Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, California. 6. Institute of Urologic Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, California. 7. Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. 8. Department of Radiology, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Thailand. 9. Department of Medicine Statistics Core, UCLA, Los Angeles, California. 10. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany; and. 11. Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, UCLA, Los Angeles, California.
Abstract
The role of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted PET in comparison to multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in the evaluation of intraprostatic cancer foci is not well defined. The aim of our study was to compare the diagnostic performance of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT (PSMA PET/CT), mpMRI, and PSMA PET/CT + mpMRI using 3 independent masked readers for each modality and with histopathology as the gold standard in the detection, intraprostatic localization, and determination of local extension of primary prostate cancer. Methods: Patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer who underwent PSMA PET/CT as part of a prospective trial (NCT03368547) and mpMRI before radical prostatectomy were included. Each imaging modality was interpreted by 3 independent readers who were unaware of the other modality result. A central majority rule was applied (2:1). Pathologic examination of whole-mount slices was used as the gold standard. Imaging scans and whole-mount slices were interpreted using the same standardized approach on a segment level and a lesion level. A "neighboring" approach was used to define imaging-pathology correlation for the detection of individual prostate cancer foci. Accuracy in determining the location, extraprostatic extension (EPE), and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) of prostate cancer foci was assessed using receiver-operating-characteristic curve analysis. Interreader agreement was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficient analysis. Results: The final analysis included 74 patients (14 [19%] with intermediate risk and 60 [81%] with high risk). The cancer detection rate (lesion-based analysis) was 85%, 83%, and 87% for PSMA PET/CT, mpMRI, and PSMA PET/CT + mpMRI, respectively. The change in AUC was statistically significant between PSMA PET/CT + mpMRI and the 2 imaging modalities alone for delineation of tumor localization (segment-based analysis) (P < 0.001) but not between PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI (P = 0.093). mpMRI outperformed PSMA PET/CT in detecting EPE (P = 0.002) and SVI (P = 0.001). In the segment-level analysis, intraclass correlation coefficient analysis showed moderate reliability among PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI readers using a 5-point Likert scale (range, 0.53-0.64). In the evaluation of T staging, poor reliability was found among PSMA PET/CT readers and poor to moderate reliability was found for mpMRI readers. Conclusion: PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI have similar accuracy in the detection and intraprostatic localization of prostate cancer foci. mpMRI performs better in identifying EPE and SVI. For the T-staging evaluation of intermediate to high-risk prostate cancer, mpMRI should still be considered the imaging modality of reference. Whenever available, PSMA PET/MRI or the coregistration or fusion of PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI (PSMA PET/CT + mpMRI) should be used as it improves tumor extent delineation.
The role of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted PET in comparison to multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in the evaluation of intraprostatic cancer foci is not well defined. The aim of our study was to compare the diagnostic performance of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT (PSMA PET/CT), mpMRI, and PSMA PET/CT + mpMRI using 3 independent masked readers for each modality and with histopathology as the gold standard in the detection, intraprostatic localization, and determination of local extension of primary prostate cancer. Methods: Patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer who underwent PSMA PET/CT as part of a prospective trial (NCT03368547) and mpMRI before radical prostatectomy were included. Each imaging modality was interpreted by 3 independent readers who were unaware of the other modality result. A central majority rule was applied (2:1). Pathologic examination of whole-mount slices was used as the gold standard. Imaging scans and whole-mount slices were interpreted using the same standardized approach on a segment level and a lesion level. A "neighboring" approach was used to define imaging-pathology correlation for the detection of individual prostate cancer foci. Accuracy in determining the location, extraprostatic extension (EPE), and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) of prostate cancer foci was assessed using receiver-operating-characteristic curve analysis. Interreader agreement was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficient analysis. Results: The final analysis included 74 patients (14 [19%] with intermediate risk and 60 [81%] with high risk). The cancer detection rate (lesion-based analysis) was 85%, 83%, and 87% for PSMA PET/CT, mpMRI, and PSMA PET/CT + mpMRI, respectively. The change in AUC was statistically significant between PSMA PET/CT + mpMRI and the 2 imaging modalities alone for delineation of tumor localization (segment-based analysis) (P < 0.001) but not between PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI (P = 0.093). mpMRI outperformed PSMA PET/CT in detecting EPE (P = 0.002) and SVI (P = 0.001). In the segment-level analysis, intraclass correlation coefficient analysis showed moderate reliability among PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI readers using a 5-point Likert scale (range, 0.53-0.64). In the evaluation of T staging, poor reliability was found among PSMA PET/CT readers and poor to moderate reliability was found for mpMRI readers. Conclusion: PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI have similar accuracy in the detection and intraprostatic localization of prostate cancer foci. mpMRI performs better in identifying EPE and SVI. For the T-staging evaluation of intermediate to high-risk prostate cancer, mpMRI should still be considered the imaging modality of reference. Whenever available, PSMA PET/MRI or the coregistration or fusion of PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI (PSMA PET/CT + mpMRI) should be used as it improves tumor extent delineation.
Authors: Edward Schaeffer; Sandy Srinivas; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Andrew J Armstrong; Justin E Bekelman; Heather Cheng; Anthony Victor D'Amico; Brian J Davis; Neil Desai; Tanya Dorff; James A Eastham; Thomas A Farrington; Xin Gao; Eric Mark Horwitz; Joseph E Ippolito; Michael R Kuettel; Joshua M Lang; Rana McKay; Jesse McKenney; George Netto; David F Penson; Julio M Pow-Sang; Robert Reiter; Sylvia Richey; Mack Roach Iii; Stan Rosenfeld; Ahmad Shabsigh; Daniel E Spratt; Benjamin A Teply; Jonathan Tward; Dorothy A Shead; Deborah A Freedman-Cass Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2021-02-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: David C Johnson; Steven S Raman; Sohrab A Mirak; Lorna Kwan; Amirhossein M Bajgiran; William Hsu; Cleo K Maehara; Preeti Ahuja; Izak Faiena; Aydin Pooli; Amirali Salmasi; Anthony Sisk; Ely R Felker; David S K Lu; Robert E Reiter Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Mark Thalgott; Charlotte Düwel; Isabel Rauscher; Matthias M Heck; Bernhard Haller; Andrei Gafita; Jürgen E Gschwend; Markus Schwaiger; Tobias Maurer; Matthias Eiber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-05-24 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Alan Priester; Shyam Natarajan; Pooria Khoshnoodi; Daniel J Margolis; Steven S Raman; Robert E Reiter; Jiaoti Huang; Warren Grundfest; Leonard S Marks Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-07-30 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Andrew T Lenis; Aydin Pooli; Patrick M Lec; Taylor Y Sadun; David C Johnson; Cedric Lebacle; Wolfgang P Fendler; Matthias Eiber; Johannes Czernin; Robert E Reiter; Jeremie Calais Journal: Eur Urol Oncol Date: 2020-09-18
Authors: H Rhee; P Thomas; B Shepherd; S Gustafson; I Vela; P J Russell; C Nelson; E Chung; G Wood; G Malone; S Wood; P Heathcote Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-05-21 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Peter Donato; Matthew J Roberts; Andrew Morton; Samuel Kyle; Geoff Coughlin; Rachel Esler; Nigel Dunglison; Robert A Gardiner; John Yaxley Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-09-19 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Mathieu Gaudreault; David Chang; Nicholas Hardcastle; Price Jackson; Tomas Kron; Michael S Hofman; Shankar Siva Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-05-17
Authors: Nicola Frego; Marco Paciotti; Nicolò Maria Buffi; Davide Maffei; Roberto Contieri; Pier Paolo Avolio; Vittorio Fasulo; Alessandro Uleri; Massimo Lazzeri; Rodolfo Hurle; Alberto Saita; Giorgio Ferruccio Guazzoni; Paolo Casale; Giovanni Lughezzani Journal: Front Surg Date: 2022-02-25