Dong-Xu Qiu1, Jian Li2, Jin-Wei Zhang3, Min-Feng Chen1, Xiao-Mei Gao4, Yong-Xiang Tang2, Ye Zhang5, Xiao-Ping Yi3, Hong-Ling Yin4, Yu Gan1, Gui-Lin Wang1, Xiong-Bing Zu1, Shuo Hu6, Yi Cai7. 1. Department of Urology, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of PET Center, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, People's Republic of China. 3. Department of Radiology, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, People's Republic of China. 4. Department of Pathology, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, People's Republic of China. 5. Department of Oncology, NHC Key Laboratory of Cancer Proteomics, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, People's Republic of China. 6. Department of PET Center, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, People's Republic of China. cai-yi@csu.edu.cn. 7. Department of Urology, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, People's Republic of China. cai-yi@csu.edu.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Growing evidence proved the efficacy of multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) and prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT)-guided targeted biopsy (TB) in prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis, but there is no direct comparison between mpMRI-TB and PSMA PET/CT-TB. Gastrin-releasing peptide receptor (GRPR) is highly expressed in PCa, which can compensate for the unstable expression of PSMA in PCa. Therefore, we designed a study to compare the efficiency of mpMRI-TB, dual-tracer (GRPR and PSMA) PET/CT-TB, systematic biopsy, and combined biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. METHODS: One hundred twelve suspicious PCa patients were enrolled from September 2020 to June 2021. Patients with anyone of positive dual-tracer PET/CT or mpMRI underwent TB, and all enrolled patients underwent systematic biopsy (SB) after TB. The primary outcome was the detection rates of PCa in different biopsy strategies. Secondary outcomes were the performance of three imaging methods, omission diagnostic rates, and upgrading and downgrading of biopsy samples relative to those of prostatectomy specimens in different biopsy strategies. McNemar's tests and Bonferroni correction in multiple comparisons were used to compare the primary and secondary outcomes. RESULTS: In 112 men, clinically significant PCa (grade group[GG] ≥ 2) accounted for 34.82% (39/112), and nonclinically significant PCa (GG = 1) accounted for 4.46% (5/112). 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT-TB achieved higher PCa detection rate (69.77%) and positive ratio of biopsy cores (0.44) compared with SB (39.29% and 0.12) and mpMRI-TB (36.14% and 0.23), respectively (P < 0.005). Dual-tracer PET/CT screen out patients for avoiding 52.67% (59/112) unnecessary biopsy, whereas dual-tracer PET/CT-TB plus SB achieved high detection rate (77.36%) without misdiagnosis of csPCa. CONCLUSION: Dual-tracer PET/CT might screen patients for avoiding unnecessary biopsy. Dual-tracer PET/CT-TB plus SB might be a more effective and promising strategy for the definite diagnosis of clinically significant PCa than mpMRI-TB.
PURPOSE: Growing evidence proved the efficacy of multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) and prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT)-guided targeted biopsy (TB) in prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis, but there is no direct comparison between mpMRI-TB and PSMA PET/CT-TB. Gastrin-releasing peptide receptor (GRPR) is highly expressed in PCa, which can compensate for the unstable expression of PSMA in PCa. Therefore, we designed a study to compare the efficiency of mpMRI-TB, dual-tracer (GRPR and PSMA) PET/CT-TB, systematic biopsy, and combined biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. METHODS: One hundred twelve suspicious PCa patients were enrolled from September 2020 to June 2021. Patients with anyone of positive dual-tracer PET/CT or mpMRI underwent TB, and all enrolled patients underwent systematic biopsy (SB) after TB. The primary outcome was the detection rates of PCa in different biopsy strategies. Secondary outcomes were the performance of three imaging methods, omission diagnostic rates, and upgrading and downgrading of biopsy samples relative to those of prostatectomy specimens in different biopsy strategies. McNemar's tests and Bonferroni correction in multiple comparisons were used to compare the primary and secondary outcomes. RESULTS: In 112 men, clinically significant PCa (grade group[GG] ≥ 2) accounted for 34.82% (39/112), and nonclinically significant PCa (GG = 1) accounted for 4.46% (5/112). 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT-TB achieved higher PCa detection rate (69.77%) and positive ratio of biopsy cores (0.44) compared with SB (39.29% and 0.12) and mpMRI-TB (36.14% and 0.23), respectively (P < 0.005). Dual-tracer PET/CT screen out patients for avoiding 52.67% (59/112) unnecessary biopsy, whereas dual-tracer PET/CT-TB plus SB achieved high detection rate (77.36%) without misdiagnosis of csPCa. CONCLUSION: Dual-tracer PET/CT might screen patients for avoiding unnecessary biopsy. Dual-tracer PET/CT-TB plus SB might be a more effective and promising strategy for the definite diagnosis of clinically significant PCa than mpMRI-TB.
Authors: Anna Bill-Axelson; Lars Holmberg; Hans Garmo; Kimmo Taari; Christer Busch; Stig Nordling; Michael Häggman; Swen-Olof Andersson; Ove Andrén; Gunnar Steineck; Hans-Olov Adami; Jan-Erik Johansson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-12-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Marloes van der Leest; Erik Cornel; Bas Israël; Rianne Hendriks; Anwar R Padhani; Martijn Hoogenboom; Patrik Zamecnik; Dirk Bakker; Anglita Yanti Setiasti; Jeroen Veltman; Huib van den Hout; Hans van der Lelij; Inge van Oort; Sjoerd Klaver; Frans Debruyne; Michiel Sedelaar; Gerjon Hannink; Maroeska Rovers; Christina Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-11-23 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ivo G Schoots; Monique J Roobol; Daan Nieboer; Chris H Bangma; Ewout W Steyerberg; M G Myriam Hunink Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-12-03 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Freddie C Hamdy; Jenny L Donovan; J Athene Lane; Malcolm Mason; Chris Metcalfe; Peter Holding; Michael Davis; Tim J Peters; Emma L Turner; Richard M Martin; Jon Oxley; Mary Robinson; John Staffurth; Eleanor Walsh; Prasad Bollina; James Catto; Andrew Doble; Alan Doherty; David Gillatt; Roger Kockelbergh; Howard Kynaston; Alan Paul; Philip Powell; Stephen Prescott; Derek J Rosario; Edward Rowe; David E Neal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: William T Lowrance; Rodney H Breau; Roger Chou; Brian F Chapin; Tony Crispino; Robert Dreicer; David F Jarrard; Adam S Kibel; Todd M Morgan; Alicia K Morgans; William K Oh; Matthew J Resnick; Anthony L Zietman; Michael S Cookson Journal: J Urol Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Geoffrey A Sonn; Richard E Fan; Pejman Ghanouni; Nancy N Wang; James D Brooks; Andreas M Loening; Bruce L Daniel; Katherine J To'o; Alan E Thong; John T Leppert Journal: Eur Urol Focus Date: 2017-12-07
Authors: Fuad F Elkhoury; Ely R Felker; Lorna Kwan; Anthony E Sisk; Merdie Delfin; Shyam Natarajan; Leonard S Marks Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 16.681
Authors: Michael Ahdoot; Andrew R Wilbur; Sarah E Reese; Amir H Lebastchi; Sherif Mehralivand; Patrick T Gomella; Jonathan Bloom; Sandeep Gurram; Minhaj Siddiqui; Paul Pinsky; Howard Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria Merino; Peter L Choyke; Joanna H Shih; Baris Turkbey; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 91.245