Evaluating F-18-PSMA-1007-PET in primary prostate cancer and comparing it to multi-parametric MRI and histopathology.


Journal

Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases
ISSN: 1476-5608
Titre abrégé: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9815755

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 2021
Historique:
received: 10 06 2020
accepted: 18 09 2020
revised: 26 08 2020
pubmed: 2 10 2020
medline: 19 1 2022
entrez: 1 10 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

PSMA-PET is a novel imaging modality for the staging of prostate cancer (PCa). While there are several PSMA ligands available, F-18-PSMA-1007 is particularly of interest as it is not renally excreted and therefore does not impair the imaging of the pelvic area. Hence, this study aimed to investigate the F-18-PSMA-1007-PET for the primary staging of PCa and compared it to multi-parametric (mp) MRI and histopathology. A retrospective study was performed of men with intermediate and high-risk PCa patients that underwent a F-18-PSMA-1007-PET after mpMRI with subsequent MR-guided target biopsy (MRGB). Suspicious mpMRI lesions and F-18-PSMA-1007-PET were simultaneously reviewed on both a per patient and per-lesion basis. Results were subsequently evaluated with histopathological outcome of MRGB, and if performed, the radical prostatectomy specimen. A total of 66 suspicious mpMRI lesions were identified in 53 patients and underwent MRGB. Two lesions had a maximum standardized uptake value (SUV The present study of a selected cohort suggest that dual imaging with mpMRI and F-18-PSMA-1007-PET may improve staging of primary PCa. F-18-PSMA-1007-PET/CT had low renal clearance, which could assist the evaluation of tumors in proximity of the bladder.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
PSMA-PET is a novel imaging modality for the staging of prostate cancer (PCa). While there are several PSMA ligands available, F-18-PSMA-1007 is particularly of interest as it is not renally excreted and therefore does not impair the imaging of the pelvic area. Hence, this study aimed to investigate the F-18-PSMA-1007-PET for the primary staging of PCa and compared it to multi-parametric (mp) MRI and histopathology.
METHODS
A retrospective study was performed of men with intermediate and high-risk PCa patients that underwent a F-18-PSMA-1007-PET after mpMRI with subsequent MR-guided target biopsy (MRGB). Suspicious mpMRI lesions and F-18-PSMA-1007-PET were simultaneously reviewed on both a per patient and per-lesion basis. Results were subsequently evaluated with histopathological outcome of MRGB, and if performed, the radical prostatectomy specimen.
RESULTS
A total of 66 suspicious mpMRI lesions were identified in 53 patients and underwent MRGB. Two lesions had a maximum standardized uptake value (SUV
CONCLUSIONS
The present study of a selected cohort suggest that dual imaging with mpMRI and F-18-PSMA-1007-PET may improve staging of primary PCa. F-18-PSMA-1007-PET/CT had low renal clearance, which could assist the evaluation of tumors in proximity of the bladder.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32999466
doi: 10.1038/s41391-020-00292-2
pii: 10.1038/s41391-020-00292-2
doi:

Substances chimiques

Oligopeptides 0
PSMA-1007 0
Radiopharmaceuticals 0
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18 0Z5B2CJX4D
Niacinamide 25X51I8RD4

Banques de données

ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04487847']

Types de publication

Comparative Study Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

423-430

Références

Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:394–424.
doi: 10.3322/caac.21492
Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71:618–29.
pubmed: 27568654
Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Bourke L, Cornford P, De Santis M, et al. EAU– ESTRO–ESUR–SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer 2020. European Association of Urology Guidelines 2020 Edition. Arnhem: European Association of Urology Guidelines Office; 2020.
van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israel B, Hendriks R, Padhani AR, Hoogenboom M, et al. Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naive men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol. 2019;75:570–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023
Drost FH, Osses DF, Nieboer D, Steyerberg EW, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ, et al. Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;4:CD012663.
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69:16–40.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052
Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, et al. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology. 2011;259:453–61.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.11091409
de Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for local staging of prostate cancer: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2016;70:233–45.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.029
Ghosh A, Heston WD. Tumor target prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) and its regulation in prostate cancer. J Cell Biochem. 2004;91:528–39.
doi: 10.1002/jcb.10661
Fendler WP, Calais J, Eiber M, Flavell RR, Mishoe A, Feng FY, et al. Assessment of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET accuracy in localizing recurrent prostate cancer: a prospective single-arm clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5:856–63.
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0096
van Kalmthout LWM, van Melick HHE, Lavalaye J, Meijer RP, Kooistra A, de Klerk JMH, et al. Prospective validation of gallium-68 prostate specific membrane antigen-positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for primary staging of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2020;203:537–45.
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000531
Eiber M, Weirich G, Holzapfel K, Souvatzoglou M, Haller B, Rauscher I, et al. Simultaneous (68)Ga-PSMA HBED-CC PET/MRI Improves the Localization of Primary Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2016;70:829–36.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.12.053
Djavan B, Moul JW, Zlotta A, Remzi M, Ravery V. PSA progression following radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy: new standards in the new Millennium. Eur Urol. 2003;43:12–27.
doi: 10.1016/S0302-2838(02)00505-5
Donato P, Roberts MJ, Morton A, Kyle S, Coughlin G, Esler R, et al. Improved specificity with (68)Ga PSMA PET/CT to detect clinically significant lesions “invisible” on multiparametric MRI of the prostate: a single institution comparative analysis with radical prostatectomy histology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46:20–30.
doi: 10.1007/s00259-018-4160-7
Koerber SA, Utzinger MT, Kratochwil C, Kesch C, Haefner MF, Katayama S, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in newly diagnosed carcinoma of the prostate: correlation of intraprostatic PSMA uptake with several clinical parameters. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:1943–8.
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.117.190314
Grubmuller B, Baltzer P, Hartenbach S, D’Andrea D, Helbich TH, Haug AR, et al. PSMA Ligand PET/MRI for primary prostate cancer: staging performance and clinical impact. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24:6300–7.
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-0768
Maurer T, Eiber M, Schwaiger M, Gschwend JE. Current use of PSMA-PET in prostate cancer management. Nat Rev Urol. 2016;13:226–35.
doi: 10.1038/nrurol.2016.26
Freitag MT, Kesch C, Cardinale J, Flechsig P, Floca R, Eiber M, et al. Simultaneous whole-body (18)F-PSMA-1007-PET/MRI with integrated high-resolution multiparametric imaging of the prostatic fossa for comprehensive oncological staging of patients with prostate cancer: a pilot study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:340–7.
doi: 10.1007/s00259-017-3854-6
Kuten J, Fahoum I, Savin Z, Shamni O, Gitstein G, Hershkovitz D, et al. Head- to head comparison of (68)Ga-PSMA-11 with (18)F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT in staging prostate cancer using histopathology and immunohistochemical analysis as reference-standard. J Nucl Med. 2020; 61:527–32.
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.119.234187
Kesch C, Vinsensia M, Radtke JP, Schlemmer HP, Heller M, Ellert E, et al. Intraindividual comparison of (18)F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT, multiparametric MRI, and radical prostatectomy specimens in patients with primary prostate cancer: a retrospective, proof-of-concept study. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:1805–10.
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.116.189233
D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280:969–74.
doi: 10.1001/jama.280.11.969
Cardinale J, Schafer M, Benesova M, Bauder-Wust U, Leotta K, Eder M, et al. Preclinical evaluation of (18)F-PSMA-1007, a new prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand for prostate cancer imaging. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:425–31.
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.116.181768
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40:244–52.
doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530
Giesel FL, Will L, Lawal I, Lengana T, Kratochwil C, Vorster M, et al. Intraindividual comparison of (18)F-PSMA-1007 and (18)F-DCFPyL PET/CT in the prospective evaluation of patients with newly diagnosed prostate carcinoma: a pilot study. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:1076–80.
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.117.204669
Ferreira G, Iravani A, Hofman MS, Hicks RJ. Intra-individual comparison of (68)Ga-PSMA-11 and (18)F-DCFPyL normal-organ biodistribution. Cancer Imaging. 2019;19:23.
doi: 10.1186/s40644-019-0211-y
Piron S, De Man K, Van Laeken N, D’Asseler Y, Bacher K, Kersemans K, et al. Radiation dosimetry and biodistribution of (18)F-PSMA-11 for PET imaging of prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:1736–42.
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.118.225250
Martini A, Gandaglia G, Fossati N, Scuderi S, Bravi CA, Mazzone E, et al. Defining clinically meaningful positive surgical margins in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019;S2588-9311:30039–2.
Hicks RM, Simko JP, Westphalen AC, Nguyen HG, Greene KL, Zhang L, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI compared with multiparametric MRI in the detection of prostate cancer. Radiology. 2018;289:730–7.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018180788
Turkbey B, Mena E, Lindenberg L, Adler S, Bednarova S, Berman R, et al. 18F-DCFBC prostate-specific membrane antigen-targeted PET/CT imaging in localized prostate cancer: correlation with multiparametric MRI and histopathology. Clin Nucl Med. 2017;42:735–40.
doi: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000001804
Rowe SP, Gage KL, Faraj SF, Macura KJ, Cornish TC, Gonzalez-Roibon N, et al.
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.115.154336
Zamboglou C, Drendel V, Jilg CA, Rischke HC, Beck TI, Schultze-Seemann W, et al. Comparison of (68)Ga-HBED-CC PSMA-PET/CT and multiparametric MRI for gross tumour volume detection in patients with primary prostate cancer based on slice by slice comparison with histopathology. Theranostics. 2017;7:228–37.
doi: 10.7150/thno.16638
Chen M, Zhang Q, Zhang C, Zhao X, Marra G, Gao J, et al. Combination of (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT and multiparametric MRI improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: a lesion-by-lesion analysis. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:944–9.
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.118.221010
Giesel FL, Sterzing F, Schlemmer HP, Holland-Letz T, Mier W, Rius M, et al. Intra-individual comparison of (68)Ga-PSMA-11-PET/CT and multi-parametric MR for imaging of primary prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol imaging. 2016;43:1400–6.
doi: 10.1007/s00259-016-3346-0
von Klot CJ, Merseburger AS, Boker A, Schmuck S, Ross TL, Bengel FM. et al. (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT imaging predicting intraprostatic tumor extent, extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion prior to radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;51:314–22.
doi: 10.1007/s13139-017-0476-7
Silver DA, Pellicer I, Fair WR, Heston WD, Cordon-Cardo C. Prostate-specific membrane antigen expression in normal and malignant human tissues. Clin Cancer Res. 1997;3:81–5.
pubmed: 9815541
Muehlematter UJ, Burger IA, Becker AS, Schawkat K, Hotker AM, Reiner CS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI versus (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI for extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion in patients with prostate cancer. Radiology. 2019;293:350–8.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019190687
Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, Capitanio U, Gallina A, Suardi N, et al. Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol. 2012;61:480–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.10.044
Briganti A, Passoni N, Ferrari M, Capitanio U, Suardi N, Gallina A, et al. When to perform bone scan in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer: external validation of the currently available guidelines and proposal of a novel risk stratification tool. Eur Urol. 2010;57:551–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.12.023
Rauscher I, Kronke M, Konig M, Gafita A, Maurer T, Horn T, et al. Matched-pair comparison of (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT and (18)F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT: frequency of pitfalls and detection efficacy in biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Nucl Med. 2020;61:51–7.
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.119.229187
Amin A, Blazevski A, Thompson J, Scheltema MJ, Hofman MS, Murphy D, et al. Protocol for the PRIMARY clinical trial, a prospective, multicentre, cross-sectional study of the additive diagnostic value of gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen positron-emission tomography/computed tomography to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnostic setting for men being investigated for prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2020;125:515–24.
doi: 10.1111/bju.14999

Auteurs

Bastiaan M Privé (BM)

Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. bastiaan.prive@radboudumc.nl.

Bas Israël (B)

Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Melline G M Schilham (MGM)

Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Constantijn H J Muselaers (CHJ)

Department of Urology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Patrik Zámecnik (P)

Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Peter F A Mulders (PFA)

Department of Urology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

J Alfred Witjes (JA)

Department of Urology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Michiel Sedelaar (M)

Department of Urology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Niven Mehra (N)

Department of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Fred Verzijlbergen (F)

Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Marcel J R Janssen (MJR)

Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Martin Gotthardt (M)

Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Jelle O Barentsz (JO)

Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Inge M van Oort (IM)

Department of Urology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

James Nagarajah (J)

Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

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