Detection rates of recurrent prostate cancer:
PET/CT
PSMA
choline
positron emission tomography
prostate cancer
Journal
Therapeutic advances in urology
ISSN: 1756-2872
Titre abrégé: Ther Adv Urol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101487328
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
06
08
2018
accepted:
06
11
2018
entrez:
24
1
2019
pubmed:
24
1
2019
medline:
24
1
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of this work was to assess the use of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-labelled radiotracers in detecting the recurrence of prostate cancer. PSMA is thought to have higher detection rates when utilized in positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) scans, particularly at lower prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, compared with choline-based scans. A systematic review was conducted comparing choline and PSMA PET/CT scans in patients with recurrent prostate cancer following an initial curative attempt. The primary outcomes were overall detection rates, detection rates at low PSA thresholds, difference in detection rates and exclusive detection rates on a per-person analysis. Secondary outcome measures were total number of lesions, exclusive detection by each scan on a per-lesion basis and adverse side effects. Overall detection rates were 79.8% for PSMA and 66.7% for choline. There was a statistically significant difference in detection rates favouring PSMA [OR (M-H, random, 95% confidence interval (CI)) 2.27 (1.06, 4.85), PSMA PET/CT has a better performance compared with choline PET/CT in detecting recurrent disease both on per-patient and per-lesion analysis and should be the imaging modality of choice while deciding on salvage and nonsystematic metastasis-directed therapy strategies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The aim of this work was to assess the use of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-labelled radiotracers in detecting the recurrence of prostate cancer. PSMA is thought to have higher detection rates when utilized in positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) scans, particularly at lower prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, compared with choline-based scans.
METHODS
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted comparing choline and PSMA PET/CT scans in patients with recurrent prostate cancer following an initial curative attempt. The primary outcomes were overall detection rates, detection rates at low PSA thresholds, difference in detection rates and exclusive detection rates on a per-person analysis. Secondary outcome measures were total number of lesions, exclusive detection by each scan on a per-lesion basis and adverse side effects.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Overall detection rates were 79.8% for PSMA and 66.7% for choline. There was a statistically significant difference in detection rates favouring PSMA [OR (M-H, random, 95% confidence interval (CI)) 2.27 (1.06, 4.85),
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
PSMA PET/CT has a better performance compared with choline PET/CT in detecting recurrent disease both on per-patient and per-lesion analysis and should be the imaging modality of choice while deciding on salvage and nonsystematic metastasis-directed therapy strategies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30671137
doi: 10.1177/1756287218815793
pii: 10.1177_1756287218815793
pmc: PMC6329022
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
1756287218815793Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Références
Clin Cancer Res. 2003 Dec 15;9(17):6357-62
pubmed: 14695135
Am J Physiol Cell Physiol. 2005 May;288(5):C975-81
pubmed: 15840561
Radiology. 2005 May;235(2):623-8
pubmed: 15858102
Mol Imaging Biol. 2006 Jan-Feb;8(1):43-8
pubmed: 16315004
Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2006 Apr;3(4):216-25
pubmed: 16607370
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008 Jan;35(1):18-23
pubmed: 17891394
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008 Feb;35(2):253-63
pubmed: 17926036
Radiol Med. 2008 Sep;113(6):895-904
pubmed: 18414809
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008 Aug;35(8):1567-9; author reply 1570
pubmed: 18521597
Pathol Oncol Res. 2009 Jun;15(2):167-72
pubmed: 18802790
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):264-9, W64
pubmed: 19622511
Cancer Res. 2009 Sep 1;69(17):6932-40
pubmed: 19706750
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012 Jun;39(6):1085-6
pubmed: 22310854
Bioconjug Chem. 2012 Apr 18;23(4):688-97
pubmed: 22369515
Eur Urol. 2014 Jun;65(6):1034-43
pubmed: 23972524
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014 Jan;41(1):11-20
pubmed: 24072344
J Nucl Med. 2014 Sep;55(9):1424-9
pubmed: 24935990
J Nucl Med. 2015 Aug;56(8):1185-90
pubmed: 26112024
Urology. 2016 Sep;95:11-5
pubmed: 26790588
Clin Nucl Med. 2016 Jul;41(7):515-21
pubmed: 26975008
Eur Urol. 2016 Dec;70(6):926-937
pubmed: 27363387
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Jan;44(1):92-101
pubmed: 27557844
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Feb 10;36(5):446-453
pubmed: 29240541
Eur Urol Focus. 2018 Mar 10;:null
pubmed: 29530632
BJU Int. 2018 Nov;122(5):783-793
pubmed: 29726071
Cancer Res. 1997 Sep 1;57(17):3629-34
pubmed: 9288760
Urology. 1998 Oct;52(4):637-40
pubmed: 9763084
Clin Cancer Res. 1997 Jan;3(1):81-5
pubmed: 9815541
Cancer. 1998 Dec 1;83(11):2259-69
pubmed: 9840525