Literature DB >> 35213092

Research Highlight: 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET Imaging for Pelvic Nodal Metastasis in Prostate Cancer.

Jurgen J Fütterer1, James Nagarajah2.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Keywords:  Positron emission tomography; Prostate cancer; Prostate-specific membrane antigen

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35213092      PMCID: PMC8876656          DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2021.0938

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Korean J Radiol        ISSN: 1229-6929            Impact factor:   3.500


× No keyword cloud information.
Take-home points • The sensitivity of 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-11 PET for detecting pelvic lymph node metastasis is moderate. • The specificity of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET in diagnosing pelvic lymph node metastasis is very high. • A negative 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET cannot preclude lymph node dissection in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. • A positive lymph node on 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer is highly likely to be a true nodal metastasis. Pelvic lymph node dissection is an important component in the staging and prognostication of prostate cancer [1]. The current guidelines on prostate cancer from the European Association of Urology, recommend performing extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) in intermediate- and high-risk patients when the estimated risk for positive lymph nodes exceeds 5% [2]. However, pelvic lymph node dissection is associated with significantly worse intraoperative and perioperative outcomes than no pelvic lymph node dissection [1]. Morphological imaging techniques, such as computer tomography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), are not accurate enough to allow for the omission of ePLND. Therefore, noninvasive molecular imaging may play a role in the detection of pelvic lymph node metastases. Recently, Hope et al. [3] reported the diagnostic accuracy of positron emission tomographic (PET) imaging for PSMA 68Ga-PSMA-11, towards the detection of pelvic nodal metastases. In this multicenter (two centers) open-label single-arm phase 3 imaging trial, 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET was compared with histopathology at the time of radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection. They found that in male with intermediate-and high-risk prostate cancer, the sensitivity and specificity of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET were 40% and 95%, respectively, and the positive and negative predictive values were 75% and 81%, respectively, for detecting pelvic nodal metastases. This study included 764 male with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer who underwent 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET imaging. Of these, 277 patients underwent radical prostatectomy and developed the primary efficacy population. All imaging studies in this population were read by three independent blinded central readers who were not involved in the study design or data acquisition. Images were interpreted visually using Prostate Cancer Molecular Imaging Standardization Evaluation criteria. Based on the pathology reports, 75 of 277 patients (27%) had pelvic nodal metastases. Interestingly, when 10 patients with false-positive results were retrospectively reviewed, five of these 10 patients had a persistent elevation of serum prostate-specific antigen after radical prostatectomy, and a post-surgery 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET scan showed the same PET-positive lymph nodes as the pre-surgery scan. Most likely, these lymph nodes were not removed, and the suboptimal reference standard might have decreased specificity. Moreover, there may be a selection bias of the patients with available histopathology, since a significant number of patients did not undergo surgery after 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET, likely due to the non-curative disease setting, of which 52% showed an N1 status on PET. In the preoperative setting, the reported sensitivity was in line with other comparable studies (38%–42%) [45]. Interestingly, the sensitivity and positive predictive value of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET were higher in patients with biochemical recurrence after surgery or radiotherapy. In clinical practice, when a negative 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET is used as the basis for not performing pelvic lymph node dissection, 80% of male would avoid unnecessary pelvic lymph node dissection and subsequent side effects. However, due to the limited sensitivity of this technique, 20% of patients who undergo radical prostatectomy alone will have unresected positive nodes. Other imaging techniques, such as intraoperative PSMA-guided or fluorescence guided techniques, may improve the 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET sensitivity in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer populations. Dual-labeling strategies that allow both acoustic and visual detection of PSMA-expressing tumor lesions are promising developments [6]. Unfortunately, these are not available in clinical practice. However, owing to technical limitations, micrometastases remain challenging even with these new techniques. In summary, the reported negative predictive value indicates that 20% of the patients who underwent radical prostatectomy and lymph node dissection had positive nodes at pathology despite concurrent negative findings on 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET. This may imply that a negative 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET result cannot preclude lymph node dissection in this patient group. However, a positive lymph node on 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET is highly likely (specificity 95%) to be a true lymph node metastasis, and thus would guide corresponding patient management.
  6 in total

1.  Outcomes of Primary Lymph Node Staging of Intermediate and High Risk Prostate Cancer with 68Ga-PSMA Positron Emission Tomography/Computerized Tomography Compared to Histological Correlation of Pelvic Lymph Node Pathology.

Authors:  John W Yaxley; Sheliyan Raveenthiran; François-Xavier Nouhaud; Hemamali Samartunga; Anna J Yaxley; Geoff Coughlin; Brett Delahunt; Lars Egevad; Louise McEwan; David Wong
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Prospective Validation of Gallium-68 Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen-Positron Emission Tomography/Computerized Tomography for Primary Staging of Prostate Cancer.

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

Review 3.  The Benefits and Harms of Different Extents of Lymph Node Dissection During Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Nicola Fossati; Peter-Paul M Willemse; Thomas Van den Broeck; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Cathy Yuhong Yuan; Erik Briers; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Philip Cornford; Maria De Santis; Ekelechi MacPepple; Ann M Henry; Malcolm D Mason; Vsevolod B Matveev; Henk G van der Poel; Theo H van der Kwast; Olivier Rouvière; Ivo G Schoots; Thomas Wiegel; Thomas B Lam; Nicolas Mottet; Steven Joniau
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2017-01-24       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 4.  EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent.

Authors:  Nicolas Mottet; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Erik Briers; Thomas Van den Broeck; Marcus G Cumberbatch; Maria De Santis; Stefano Fanti; Nicola Fossati; Giorgio Gandaglia; Silke Gillessen; Nikos Grivas; Jeremy Grummet; Ann M Henry; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Thomas B Lam; Michael Lardas; Matthew Liew; Malcolm D Mason; Lisa Moris; Daniela E Oprea-Lager; Henk G van der Poel; Olivier Rouvière; Ivo G Schoots; Derya Tilki; Thomas Wiegel; Peter-Paul M Willemse; Philip Cornford
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2020-11-07       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  Diagnostic Accuracy of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for Pelvic Nodal Metastasis Detection Prior to Radical Prostatectomy and Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection: A Multicenter Prospective Phase 3 Imaging Trial.

Authors:  Thomas A Hope; Matthias Eiber; Wesley R Armstrong; Roxanna Juarez; Vishnu Murthy; Courtney Lawhn-Heath; Spencer C Behr; Li Zhang; Francesco Barbato; Francesco Ceci; Andrea Farolfi; Sarah M Schwarzenböck; Marcus Unterrainer; Helle D Zacho; Hao G Nguyen; Matthew R Cooperberg; Peter R Carroll; Robert E Reiter; Stuart Holden; Ken Herrmann; Shaojun Zhu; Wolfgang P Fendler; Johannes Czernin; Jeremie Calais
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 33.006

Review 6.  PSMA-targeting agents for radio- and fluorescence-guided prostate cancer surgery.

Authors:  Yvonne H W Derks; Dennis W P M Löwik; J P Michiel Sedelaar; Martin Gotthardt; Otto C Boerman; Mark Rijpkema; Susanne Lütje; Sandra Heskamp
Journal:  Theranostics       Date:  2019-09-20       Impact factor: 11.556

  6 in total
  1 in total

1.  Phase I Clinical Trial of Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen-Targeting 68Ga-NGUL PET/CT in Healthy Volunteers and Patients with Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Minseok Suh; Hyun Gee Ryoo; Keon Wook Kang; Jae Min Jeong; Chang Wook Jeong; Cheol Kwak; Gi Jeong Cheon
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2022-06-20       Impact factor: 7.109

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.