A comparison between
Magnetic resonance imaging
PSMA positron emission tomography
Pelvic lymph nodes
Prostate cancer
Staging
Journal
Abdominal radiology (New York)
ISSN: 2366-0058
Titre abrégé: Abdom Radiol (NY)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101674571
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2020
12 2020
Historique:
received:
01
04
2020
accepted:
04
07
2020
revised:
24
06
2020
pubmed:
17
7
2020
medline:
22
6
2021
entrez:
17
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare the ability of A multicenter cohort of patients who underwent PSMA PET/CT and pelvic mpMRI prior to RP with pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) was analyzed. Increased Ga68-PSMA uptake on PET/CT and enlarged (> 10 mm) or abnormal lymph nodes on mpMRI were considered positive findings. The final surgical pathology served as the standard of reference. The negative predictive value (NPV) was calculated for each modality separately, as well as the combined value. Included were 89 patients with D'Amico intermediate (45%) or high-risk (55%) prostate cancer. The median number of extracted LN was 9 (IQR 6-14). LNI was found in 12 (13.5%) patients. The NPV of mpMRI, PSMA PET/CT, and the two tests combined were 87%, 89%, and 90%, in the entire cohort, 95%, 97%, and 97% in patients with intermediate-risk disease, and 80%, 82%, and 83% in patients with high-risk disease, respectively. The median diameter of LN missed by both imaging and the median intranodal tumor diameter was 5.5 (IQR 3-10) mm and 1 (IQR 1-3) mm, respectively. PSMA PET/CT and mpMRI demonstrated similar performance in excluding pelvic LNI with NPV of approximately 90%. The combination of both tests does not improve NPV significantly. Therefore, even in the era of advanced imaging, PLND is still recommended for accurate staging, especially in the high-risk population.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32671440
doi: 10.1007/s00261-020-02640-1
pii: 10.1007/s00261-020-02640-1
doi:
Substances chimiques
Gallium Radioisotopes
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
4194-4201Références
Bader P, Burkhard FC, Markwalder R, et al. Disease progression and survival of patients with positive lymph nodes after radical prostatectomy. Is there a chance of cure? J Urol. 2003;169(3):849-854. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000049032.38743.c7
Touijer KA, Karnes RJ, Passoni N, et al. Survival Outcomes of Men with Lymph Node-positive Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy: A Comparative Analysis of Different Postoperative Management Strategies. Eur Urol. 2018;73(6):890-896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.09.027
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.09.027
pubmed: 29042125
Reyes DK, Pienta KJ. The biology and treatment of oligometastatic cancer. Oncotarget. 2015;6(11):8491-8524. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.3455
Batra V, Gautam G, Jaipuria J, Suryavanshi M, Khera R, Ahlawat R. Predictive factors for lymph node positivity in patients undergoing extended pelvic lymphadenectomy during robot assisted radical prostatectomy. Indian J Urol. 2015;31(3):217-222. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.156918
doi: 10.4103/0970-1591.156918
pubmed: 26166965
pmcid: 4495496
Turk H, Ün S, Koca O, Cinkaya A, Kodaz H, Zorlu F. The factors that affect the prediction of lymph node metastasis in prostate cancer. J Cancer Res Ther. 2018;14(5):1094-1098 https://doi.org/10.4103/0973-1482.187286
doi: 10.4103/0973-1482.187286
pubmed: 30197355
Makarov DV, Trock BJ, Humphreys EB, et al. Updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason score (Partin tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005. Urology. 2007;69(6):1095-1101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2007.03.042
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.03.042
pubmed: 17572194
pmcid: 1993240
EAU Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Copenhagen 2018. ISBN 978-94-92671-01-1. http://uroweb.org/guidelines/compilations-of-all-guidelines .
Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline (2017) https://www.auanet.org/guidelines/prostate-cancer-clinically-localized-guideline
Hovels AM, Heesakkers RA, Adang EM, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol. 2008;63(4):387-395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2007.05.022
doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2007.05.022
pubmed: 18325358
Sweat SD, Pacelli A, Murphy GP, et al. Prostate-specific membrane antigen expression is greatest in prostate adenocarcinoma and lymph node metastases. Urology. 1998;52(4):637-640. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(98)00278-7
doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(98)00278-7
pubmed: 9763084
van Leeuwen PJ, Emmett L, Ho B, et al. Prospective evaluation of 68Gallium-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography for preoperative lymph node staging in prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2017;119(2):209-215. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13540
doi: 10.1111/bju.13540
pubmed: 27207581
Kim SJ, Lee SW, Ha HK. Diagnostic Performance of Radiolabeled Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography for Primary Lymph Node Staging in Newly Diagnosed Intermediate to High-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Urol Int. 2019;102(1):27-36. https://doi.org/10.1159/000493169
doi: 10.1159/000493169
pubmed: 30269140
Perera M, Papa N, Christidis D, et al. Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predictors of Positive (68)Ga-Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography in Advanced Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2016;70(6):926-937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.021
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.021
pubmed: 27363387
Herlemann A, Wenter V, Kretschmer A, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Provides Accurate Staging of Lymph Node Regions Prior to Lymph Node Dissection in Patients with Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2016;70(4):553-557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.12.051
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.12.051
pubmed: 26810345
Maurer T, Gschwend JE, Rauscher I, et al. Diagnostic Efficacy of (68)Gallium-PSMA Positron Emission Tomography Compared to Conventional Imaging for Lymph Node Staging of 130 Consecutive Patients with Intermediate to High Risk Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2016;195(5):1436-1443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.025
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.025
pubmed: 26682756
Brembilla G, Dell’Oglio P, Stabile A, et al. Preoperative multiparametric MRI of the prostate for the prediction of lymph node metastases in prostate cancer patients treated with extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Eur Radiol. 2018;28(5):1969-1976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5229-6
doi: 10.1007/s00330-017-5229-6
pubmed: 29270644
D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Jama. 1998;280(11):969-974. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.11.969
doi: 10.1001/jama.280.11.969
pubmed: 9749478
Campbell I. Chi squared and Fisher-Irwin tests of two-by-two tables with small sample recommendations. Stat Med. 2007;26(19):3661-3675. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2832
doi: 10.1002/sim.2832
pubmed: 17315184
Gupta M, Choudhury PS, Hazarika D, et al. A Comparative Study of (68)Gallium-Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Lymph Node Staging in High Risk Prostate Cancer Patients: An Initial Experience. World J Nucl Med. 2017;16(3):186-191. https://doi.org/10.4103/1450-1147.207272
doi: 10.4103/1450-1147.207272
pubmed: 28670175
pmcid: 5460300
Zhang Q, Zang S, Zhang C, et al. Comparison of (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET-CT with mpMRI for preoperative lymph node staging in patients with intermediate to high-risk prostate cancer. J Transl Med. 2017;15(1):230. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-017-1333-2
doi: 10.1186/s12967-017-1333-2
pubmed: 29115970
pmcid: 5688809
Yaxley JW, Raveenthiran S, Nouhaud FX, et al. Outcomes of Primary Lymph Node Staging of Intermediate and High Risk Prostate Cancer with (68)Ga-PSMA Positron Emission Tomography/Computerized Tomography Compared to Histological Correlation of Pelvic Lymph Node Pathology. J Urol. 2019;201(4):815-820. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000053
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000053
pubmed: 30672842
Uprimny C, Kroiss AS, Decristoforo C, et al. Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in primary staging of prostate cancer: PSA and Gleason score predict the intensity of tracer accumulation in the primary tumour. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(6):941-949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3631-6
doi: 10.1007/s00259-017-3631-6
pubmed: 28138747
Abdollah F, Briganti A, Montorsi F, et al. Contemporary role of salvage lymphadenectomy in patients with recurrence following radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2015;67(5):839-849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.03.019
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.03.019
pubmed: 24698524