Correlation Between Quantitative PSMA PET Parameters and Clinical Risk Factors in Non-Metastatic Primary Prostate Cancer Patients.
PSMA
positron emission tomography
primary prostate cancer
prostate specific membrane antigen
quantitative PET parameters
Journal
Frontiers in oncology
ISSN: 2234-943X
Titre abrégé: Front Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568867
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
18
02
2022
accepted:
28
03
2022
entrez:
9
5
2022
pubmed:
10
5
2022
medline:
10
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
PSMA PET is frequently used for staging of prostate cancer patients. Furthermore, there is increasing interest to use PET information for personalized local treatment approaches in surgery and radiotherapy, especially for focal treatment strategies. However, it is not well established which quantitative imaging parameters show highest correlation with clinical and histological tumor aggressiveness. This is a retrospective analysis of 135 consecutive patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer and PSMA PET before any treatment. Clinical risk parameters (PSA values, Gleason score and D'Amico risk group) were correlated with quantitative PET parameters maximum standardized uptake value (SUV Most of the investigated imaging parameters were highly correlated with each other (correlation coefficients between 0.20 and 0.95). A low to moderate, however significant, correlation of imaging parameters with PSA values (0.19 to 0.45) and with Gleason scores (0.17 to 0.31) was observed for all parameters except ASP which did not show a significant correlation with Gleason score. Receiver operating characteristics for the detection of D'Amico high-risk patients showed poor to fair sensitivity and specificity for all investigated quantitative PSMA PET parameters (Areas under the curve (AUC) between 0.63 and 0.73). Comparison of AUC between quantitative PET parameters by DeLong test showed significant superiority of SUV Our data confirm prior publications with lower number of patients that reported moderate correlations of PSMA PET parameters with clinical risk factors. With the important limitation that Gleason scores were only biopsy-derived in this study, there is no indication that the investigated additional parameters deliver superior information compared to SUV
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
PSMA PET is frequently used for staging of prostate cancer patients. Furthermore, there is increasing interest to use PET information for personalized local treatment approaches in surgery and radiotherapy, especially for focal treatment strategies. However, it is not well established which quantitative imaging parameters show highest correlation with clinical and histological tumor aggressiveness.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
This is a retrospective analysis of 135 consecutive patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer and PSMA PET before any treatment. Clinical risk parameters (PSA values, Gleason score and D'Amico risk group) were correlated with quantitative PET parameters maximum standardized uptake value (SUV
Results
UNASSIGNED
Most of the investigated imaging parameters were highly correlated with each other (correlation coefficients between 0.20 and 0.95). A low to moderate, however significant, correlation of imaging parameters with PSA values (0.19 to 0.45) and with Gleason scores (0.17 to 0.31) was observed for all parameters except ASP which did not show a significant correlation with Gleason score. Receiver operating characteristics for the detection of D'Amico high-risk patients showed poor to fair sensitivity and specificity for all investigated quantitative PSMA PET parameters (Areas under the curve (AUC) between 0.63 and 0.73). Comparison of AUC between quantitative PET parameters by DeLong test showed significant superiority of SUV
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Our data confirm prior publications with lower number of patients that reported moderate correlations of PSMA PET parameters with clinical risk factors. With the important limitation that Gleason scores were only biopsy-derived in this study, there is no indication that the investigated additional parameters deliver superior information compared to SUV
Identifiants
pubmed: 35530334
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.879089
pmc: PMC9074726
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
879089Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Zschaeck, Andela, Amthauer, Furth, Rogasch, Beck, Hofheinz and Huang.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
HA declares research grants, travel grants, and lecture fees from Sirtex Medical Europe; HA confirms that none of the above funding sources were involved in the preparation of this paper. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020 Jan;47(1):168-177
pubmed: 31529265
Prostate. 2018 Jul 5;:
pubmed: 29978529
JAMA. 1998 Sep 16;280(11):969-74
pubmed: 9749478
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Nov 18;13(22):
pubmed: 34830950
BJU Int. 2009 Jun;103(12):1647-54
pubmed: 19154461
J Clin Oncol. 2021 Mar 1;39(7):787-796
pubmed: 33471548
PLoS One. 2020 Jul 30;15(7):e0236841
pubmed: 32730364
Front Oncol. 2021 Feb 18;11:630589
pubmed: 33680970
Theranostics. 2021 Jul 6;11(16):8027-8042
pubmed: 34335978
Diagnostics (Basel). 2020 Sep 22;10(9):
pubmed: 32971877
Theranostics. 2019 Apr 13;9(9):2595-2605
pubmed: 31131055
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019 Jan;46(1):20-30
pubmed: 30229528
Sci Rep. 2021 Mar 12;11(1):5836
pubmed: 33712662
Front Oncol. 2020 Dec 07;10:600690
pubmed: 33365271
EJNMMI Res. 2020 Nov 6;10(1):135
pubmed: 33159278
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018 Oct;45(11):1852-1861
pubmed: 29717333
Urology. 2006 Feb;67(2):379-83
pubmed: 16461089
Clin Nucl Med. 2016 Nov;41(11):e473-e479
pubmed: 27607173
EJNMMI Res. 2020 Nov 10;10(1):138
pubmed: 33169183
J Nucl Med. 2015 Dec;56(12):1843-8
pubmed: 26405169
EJNMMI Res. 2017 Oct 23;7(1):85
pubmed: 29058157
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Apr;44(4):678-688
pubmed: 27889802
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Dec;211(6):1246-1253
pubmed: 30300002
Am J Surg Pathol. 2016 Feb;40(2):244-52
pubmed: 26492179
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021 Apr;48(4):1211-1218
pubmed: 33025093
Cancer Imaging. 2020 Jan 23;20(1):10
pubmed: 31973751
Ann Nucl Med. 2018 Oct;32(8):542-552
pubmed: 30006752
Eur Radiol. 2014 Sep;24(9):2077-87
pubmed: 24965509
Ann Nucl Med. 2021 Mar;35(3):314-320
pubmed: 33351172
PLoS One. 2017 Aug 17;12(8):e0183329
pubmed: 28817656
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015 Mar;42(3):429-37
pubmed: 25416633
J Nucl Med. 2020 Apr;61(4):527-532
pubmed: 31562225
J Nucl Med. 2015 Aug;56(8):1285-91
pubmed: 26135111
Radiother Oncol. 2019 Dec;141:214-219
pubmed: 31431366
Nucl Med Commun. 2019 Jan;40(1):86-91
pubmed: 30395048
Eur Urol. 2016 Nov;70(5):829-836
pubmed: 26795686
Ann Nucl Med. 2019 Oct;33(10):766-775
pubmed: 31338731
EJNMMI Res. 2020 Feb 24;10(1):12
pubmed: 32140850
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Jun;44(6):941-949
pubmed: 28138747
Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2020 Oct 20;25:88-93
pubmed: 33145444
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013 Apr;40(4):486-95
pubmed: 23179945
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021 Aug;48(9):2978-2989
pubmed: 33550425