Jie Gao1, Longxiyu Meng1, Qinfeng Xu2, Xiaozhi Zhao1, Yongming Deng1, Yao Fu3, Suhan Guo4, Kuiqiang He1, Jiong Shi3, Feng Wang2, Shiwei Zhang5, Hongqian Guo6. 1. Department of Urology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Institute of Urology, Nanjing University, No. 321 Zhongshan Road, Nanjing, 210008, Jiangsu Province, China. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu, China. 3. Department of Pathology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Jiangsu, China. 4. School of Artificial Intelligence, Nanjing University, Jiangsu, China. 5. Department of Urology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Institute of Urology, Nanjing University, No. 321 Zhongshan Road, Nanjing, 210008, Jiangsu Province, China. zsw999@hotmail.com. 6. Department of Urology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Institute of Urology, Nanjing University, No. 321 Zhongshan Road, Nanjing, 210008, Jiangsu Province, China. dr.ghq@nju.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Response prediction is necessary for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) tumors. We aim to evaluate parameters derived from 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT images for prediction of pathological VEGFR-2/PDGFR-β expression of primary RCC tumors. METHODS: Forty-eight RCC patients were retrospectively enrolled with preoperative 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT scan and surgical specimen. Radiological parameters including tumor diameter, mean CT value, and maximal standard uptake value (SUVmax) were derived from PET/CT images and pathological VEGFR-2/PDGFR-β/PSMA expression were identified with immunohistochemistry. Mann-Whitney U test was performed for continuous variables and the chi-square test for categorical variables. ROC was used for determining the effectiveness of preoperative parameters in differentiating VEGFR-2/PDGFR-β expression. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed for significant parameters to predict VEGFR-2 & PDGFR-β co-expression. RESULTS: Of the 48 tumors, 25 (52.1%) harbored positive VEGFR-2 expression, 28 (58.3%) harbored positive PDGFR-β expression, and 24 (50%) were both VEGFR-2 positive and PDGFR-β positive. SUVmax significantly differed by subgroups of VEGFR-2/PDGFR-β expression (both P < 0.001). SUVmax demonstrated superior performance for differentiating VEGFR-2 & PDGFR-β co-expression (positive vs. negative), with area under the curve 0.87 (95% CI 0.78-0.96, P < 0.001), sensitivity 93% and specificity 78%. Moreover, SUVmax was identified as the significant predictor for VEGFR-2 & PDGFR-β co-expression (odds ratio 4.01, 95% CI 1.99-8.08, P < 0.001). Concordant with radiological findings with 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT, pathological PSMA staining intensity was significantly higher in both VEGFR-2-positive tumor and PDGFR-β-positive tumor (P = 0.009 and P < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT could effectively identify pathological VEGFR-2/PDGFR-β expression of primary RCC tumors, which may help with selection of mRCC patients suitable for TKIs treatment.
BACKGROUND: Response prediction is necessary for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) tumors. We aim to evaluate parameters derived from 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT images for prediction of pathological VEGFR-2/PDGFR-β expression of primary RCC tumors. METHODS: Forty-eight RCC patients were retrospectively enrolled with preoperative 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT scan and surgical specimen. Radiological parameters including tumor diameter, mean CT value, and maximal standard uptake value (SUVmax) were derived from PET/CT images and pathological VEGFR-2/PDGFR-β/PSMA expression were identified with immunohistochemistry. Mann-Whitney U test was performed for continuous variables and the chi-square test for categorical variables. ROC was used for determining the effectiveness of preoperative parameters in differentiating VEGFR-2/PDGFR-β expression. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed for significant parameters to predict VEGFR-2 & PDGFR-β co-expression. RESULTS: Of the 48 tumors, 25 (52.1%) harbored positive VEGFR-2 expression, 28 (58.3%) harbored positive PDGFR-β expression, and 24 (50%) were both VEGFR-2 positive and PDGFR-β positive. SUVmax significantly differed by subgroups of VEGFR-2/PDGFR-β expression (both P < 0.001). SUVmax demonstrated superior performance for differentiating VEGFR-2 & PDGFR-β co-expression (positive vs. negative), with area under the curve 0.87 (95% CI 0.78-0.96, P < 0.001), sensitivity 93% and specificity 78%. Moreover, SUVmax was identified as the significant predictor for VEGFR-2 & PDGFR-β co-expression (odds ratio 4.01, 95% CI 1.99-8.08, P < 0.001). Concordant with radiological findings with 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT, pathological PSMA staining intensity was significantly higher in both VEGFR-2-positive tumor and PDGFR-β-positive tumor (P = 0.009 and P < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: 68 Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT could effectively identify pathological VEGFR-2/PDGFR-β expression of primary RCC tumors, which may help with selection of mRCC patients suitable for TKIs treatment.
Authors: Robert J Motzer; Brian I Rini; David F McDermott; Osvaldo Arén Frontera; Hans J Hammers; Michael A Carducci; Pamela Salman; Bernard Escudier; Benoit Beuselinck; Asim Amin; Camillo Porta; Saby George; Victoria Neiman; Sergio Bracarda; Scott S Tykodi; Philippe Barthélémy; Raya Leibowitz-Amit; Elizabeth R Plimack; Sjoukje F Oosting; Bruce Redman; Bohuslav Melichar; Thomas Powles; Paul Nathan; Stéphane Oudard; David Pook; Toni K Choueiri; Frede Donskov; Marc-Oliver Grimm; Howard Gurney; Daniel Y C Heng; Christian K Kollmannsberger; Michael R Harrison; Yoshihiko Tomita; Ignacio Duran; Viktor Grünwald; M Brent McHenry; Sabeen Mekan; Nizar M Tannir Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2019-08-16 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Bernard Escudier; Tim Eisen; Walter M Stadler; Cezary Szczylik; Stéphane Oudard; Michael Siebels; Sylvie Negrier; Christine Chevreau; Ewa Solska; Apurva A Desai; Frédéric Rolland; Tomasz Demkow; Thomas E Hutson; Martin Gore; Scott Freeman; Brian Schwartz; Minghua Shan; Ronit Simantov; Ronald M Bukowski Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-01-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Robert J Motzer; Thomas E Hutson; Piotr Tomczak; M Dror Michaelson; Ronald M Bukowski; Olivier Rixe; Stéphane Oudard; Sylvie Negrier; Cezary Szczylik; Sindy T Kim; Isan Chen; Paul W Bycott; Charles M Baum; Robert A Figlin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-01-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: James J Hsieh; Mark P Purdue; Sabina Signoretti; Charles Swanton; Laurence Albiges; Manuela Schmidinger; Daniel Y Heng; James Larkin; Vincenzo Ficarra Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 52.329
Authors: Premal H Patel; Rajendrakumar S V Chadalavada; R S K Chaganti; Robert J Motzer Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2006-12-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Umberto Capitanio; Karim Bensalah; Axel Bex; Stephen A Boorjian; Freddie Bray; Jonathan Coleman; John L Gore; Maxine Sun; Christopher Wood; Paul Russo Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-09-19 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Toni K Choueiri; Thomas Powles; Mauricio Burotto; Bernard Escudier; Maria T Bourlon; Bogdan Zurawski; Victor M Oyervides Juárez; James J Hsieh; Umberto Basso; Amishi Y Shah; Cristina Suárez; Alketa Hamzaj; Jeffrey C Goh; Carlos Barrios; Martin Richardet; Camillo Porta; Rubén Kowalyszyn; Juan P Feregrino; Jakub Żołnierek; David Pook; Elizabeth R Kessler; Yoshihiko Tomita; Ryuichi Mizuno; Jens Bedke; Joshua Zhang; Matthew A Maurer; Burcin Simsek; Flavia Ejzykowicz; Gisela M Schwab; Andrea B Apolo; Robert J Motzer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2021-03-04 Impact factor: 91.245