Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET-CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer before curative-intent surgery or radiotherapy (proPSMA): a prospective, randomised, multicentre study.


Journal

Lancet (London, England)
ISSN: 1474-547X
Titre abrégé: Lancet
Pays: England
ID NLM: 2985213R

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
11 04 2020
Historique:
received: 23 01 2020
revised: 02 02 2020
accepted: 04 02 2020
pubmed: 27 3 2020
medline: 24 4 2020
entrez: 27 3 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Conventional imaging using CT and bone scan has insufficient sensitivity when staging men with high-risk localised prostate cancer. We aimed to investigate whether novel imaging using prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET-CT might improve accuracy and affect management. In this multicentre, two-arm, randomised study, we recruited men with biopsy-proven prostate cancer and high-risk features at ten hospitals in Australia. Patients were randomly assigned to conventional imaging with CT and bone scanning or gallium-68 PSMA-11 PET-CT. First-line imaging was done within 21 days following randomisation. Patients crossed over unless three or more distant metastases were identified. The primary outcome was accuracy of first-line imaging for identifying either pelvic nodal or distant-metastatic disease defined by the receiver-operating curve using a predefined reference-standard including histopathology, imaging, and biochemistry at 6-month follow-up. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ANZCTR12617000005358. From March 22, 2017 to Nov 02, 2018, 339 men were assessed for eligibility and 302 men were randomly assigned. 152 (50%) men were randomly assigned to conventional imaging and 150 (50%) to PSMA PET-CT. Of 295 (98%) men with follow-up, 87 (30%) had pelvic nodal or distant metastatic disease. PSMA PET-CT had a 27% (95% CI 23-31) greater accuracy than that of conventional imaging (92% [88-95] vs 65% [60-69]; p<0·0001). We found a lower sensitivity (38% [24-52] vs 85% [74-96]) and specificity (91% [85-97] vs 98% [95-100]) for conventional imaging compared with PSMA PET-CT. Subgroup analyses also showed the superiority of PSMA PET-CT (area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic curve 91% vs 59% [32% absolute difference; 28-35] for patients with pelvic nodal metastases, and 95% vs 74% [22% absolute difference; 18-26] for patients with distant metastases). First-line conventional imaging conferred management change less frequently (23 [15%] men [10-22] vs 41 [28%] men [21-36]; p=0·008) and had more equivocal findings (23% [17-31] vs 7% [4-13]) than PSMA PET-CT did. Radiation exposure was 10·9 mSv (95% CI 9·8-12·0) higher for conventional imaging than for PSMA PET-CT (19·2 mSv vs 8·4 mSv; p<0·001). We found high reporter agreement for PSMA PET-CT (κ=0·87 for nodal and κ=0·88 for distant metastases). In patients who underwent second-line image, management change occurred in seven (5%) of 136 patients following conventional imaging, and in 39 (27%) of 146 following PSMA PET-CT. PSMA PET-CT is a suitable replacement for conventional imaging, providing superior accuracy, to the combined findings of CT and bone scanning. Movember and Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia. VIDEO ABSTRACT.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Conventional imaging using CT and bone scan has insufficient sensitivity when staging men with high-risk localised prostate cancer. We aimed to investigate whether novel imaging using prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET-CT might improve accuracy and affect management.
METHODS
In this multicentre, two-arm, randomised study, we recruited men with biopsy-proven prostate cancer and high-risk features at ten hospitals in Australia. Patients were randomly assigned to conventional imaging with CT and bone scanning or gallium-68 PSMA-11 PET-CT. First-line imaging was done within 21 days following randomisation. Patients crossed over unless three or more distant metastases were identified. The primary outcome was accuracy of first-line imaging for identifying either pelvic nodal or distant-metastatic disease defined by the receiver-operating curve using a predefined reference-standard including histopathology, imaging, and biochemistry at 6-month follow-up. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ANZCTR12617000005358.
FINDINGS
From March 22, 2017 to Nov 02, 2018, 339 men were assessed for eligibility and 302 men were randomly assigned. 152 (50%) men were randomly assigned to conventional imaging and 150 (50%) to PSMA PET-CT. Of 295 (98%) men with follow-up, 87 (30%) had pelvic nodal or distant metastatic disease. PSMA PET-CT had a 27% (95% CI 23-31) greater accuracy than that of conventional imaging (92% [88-95] vs 65% [60-69]; p<0·0001). We found a lower sensitivity (38% [24-52] vs 85% [74-96]) and specificity (91% [85-97] vs 98% [95-100]) for conventional imaging compared with PSMA PET-CT. Subgroup analyses also showed the superiority of PSMA PET-CT (area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic curve 91% vs 59% [32% absolute difference; 28-35] for patients with pelvic nodal metastases, and 95% vs 74% [22% absolute difference; 18-26] for patients with distant metastases). First-line conventional imaging conferred management change less frequently (23 [15%] men [10-22] vs 41 [28%] men [21-36]; p=0·008) and had more equivocal findings (23% [17-31] vs 7% [4-13]) than PSMA PET-CT did. Radiation exposure was 10·9 mSv (95% CI 9·8-12·0) higher for conventional imaging than for PSMA PET-CT (19·2 mSv vs 8·4 mSv; p<0·001). We found high reporter agreement for PSMA PET-CT (κ=0·87 for nodal and κ=0·88 for distant metastases). In patients who underwent second-line image, management change occurred in seven (5%) of 136 patients following conventional imaging, and in 39 (27%) of 146 following PSMA PET-CT.
INTERPRETATION
PSMA PET-CT is a suitable replacement for conventional imaging, providing superior accuracy, to the combined findings of CT and bone scanning.
FUNDING
Movember and Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia. VIDEO ABSTRACT.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32209449
pii: S0140-6736(20)30314-7
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30314-7
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Antigens, Surface 0
Biomarkers 0
FOLH1 protein, human EC 3.4.17.21
Glutamate Carboxypeptidase II EC 3.4.17.21

Types de publication

Journal Article Multicenter Study Randomized Controlled Trial

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1208-1216

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Michael S Hofman (MS)

Molecular Imaging and Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. Electronic address: michael.hofman@petermac.org.

Nathan Lawrentschuk (N)

Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Surgery, Austin Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand, NSW, Australia.

Roslyn J Francis (RJ)

Department of Nuclear Medicine, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia; University of Western Australia, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Perth, WA, Australia; ARTnet, NSW, Australia.

Colin Tang (C)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Australia.

Ian Vela (I)

Department of Urology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Australian Prostate Cancer Research Centre-Queensland, Queensland University of Technology, Translational Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

Paul Thomas (P)

Department of Nuclear Medicine, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

Natalie Rutherford (N)

Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hunter New England Health, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.

Jarad M Martin (JM)

School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.

Mark Frydenberg (M)

Department of Surgery, Monash University and Cabrini Institute, Cabrini Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Ramdave Shakher (R)

Monash Health Imaging, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Lih-Ming Wong (LM)

Department of Urology and Surgery, St Vincent's Health Melbourne, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Kim Taubman (K)

Department of Medical Imaging, PET/CT and St Vincent's Private Radiology, St Vincent's Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Sze Ting Lee (S)

Department of Molecular Imaging and Therapy, Austin Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Edward Hsiao (E)

University of Sydney, Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Paul Roach (P)

University of Sydney, Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Michelle Nottage (M)

Clinical and Research Imaging Centre, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, SA, Australia; Dr Jones and Partners Medical Imaging, Adelaide, SA, Australia.

Ian Kirkwood (I)

Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia; Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.

Dickon Hayne (D)

UWA Medical School, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.

Emma Link (E)

Centre for Biostatistics and Clinical Trials, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Petra Marusic (P)

Molecular Imaging and Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Anetta Matera (A)

Centre for Biostatistics and Clinical Trials, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Alan Herschtal (A)

Centre for Biostatistics and Clinical Trials, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Amir Iravani (A)

Molecular Imaging and Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Rodney J Hicks (RJ)

Molecular Imaging and Therapeutic Nuclear Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Scott Williams (S)

Division of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Australian and New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate Cancer Trials Group, NSW, Australia.

Declan G Murphy (DG)

Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH