Could 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT Evaluation Reduce the Number of Scheduled Prostate Biopsies in Men Enrolled in Active Surveillance Protocols?
68Ga-PSMA PET/CT
active surveillance
mpMRI
prostate cancer
targeted prostate biopsy
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Jun 2022
16 Jun 2022
Historique:
received:
30
05
2022
revised:
13
06
2022
accepted:
13
06
2022
entrez:
24
6
2022
pubmed:
25
6
2022
medline:
25
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Background: To evaluate the accuracy of 68Ga-prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) (Grade Group > 2) in men enrolled in Active Surveillance (AS) protocol. Methods: From May 2013 to May 2021, 173 men with very low-risk PCa were enrolled in an AS protocol study. During the follow-up, 38/173 (22%) men were upgraded and 8/173 (4.6%) decided to leave the AS protocol. After four years from confirmatory biopsy (range: 48−52 months), 30/127 (23.6%) consecutive patients were submitted to mpMRI and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT scan before scheduled repeated biopsy. All the mpMRI (PI-RADS > 3) and 68Ga-PET/TC standardised uptake value (SUVmax) > 5 g/mL index lesions underwent targeted cores (mpMRI-TPBx and PSMA-TPBx) combined with transperineal saturation prostate biopsy (SPBx: median 20 cores). Results: mpMRI and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT showed 14/30 (46.6%) and 6/30 (20%) lesions suspicious for PCa. In 2/30 (6.6%) men, a csPCa was found; 68Ga-PSMA-TPBx vs. mpMRI-TPBx vs. SPBx diagnosed 1/2 (50%) vs. 1/2 (50%) vs. 2/2 (100%) csPCa, respectively. In detail, mpMRI and 68Ga-PSMA PET/TC demonstrated 13/30 (43.3%) vs. 5/30 (16.7%) false positive and 1 (50%) vs. 1 (50%) false negative results. Conclusion: 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT did not improve the detection for csPCa of SPBx but would have spared 24/30 (80%) scheduled biopsies showing a lower false positive rate in comparison with mpMRI (20% vs. 43.3%) and a negative predictive value of 85.7% vs. 57.1%, respectively.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35743547
pii: jcm11123473
doi: 10.3390/jcm11123473
pmc: PMC9225630
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Prostate Int. 2020 Dec;8(4):167-172
pubmed: 33425794
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2020 Dec;18(6):e698-e704
pubmed: 32493676
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021 Jun;24(2):423-430
pubmed: 32999466
Eur Urol. 2018 Sep;74(3):357-368
pubmed: 29937198
J Urol. 2020 Jun;203(6):1122-1127
pubmed: 31868556
J Transl Med. 2017 Nov 7;15(1):230
pubmed: 29115970
J Nucl Med. 2016 Nov;57(11):1720-1725
pubmed: 27261520
Eur Urol. 2020 Apr;77(4):403-417
pubmed: 30773328
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2021 Aug;19(4):305-308
pubmed: 33642223
J Urol. 2018 Oct;200(4):774-778
pubmed: 29679618
Scand J Urol. 2017 Aug;51(4):260-263
pubmed: 28513296
Eur Radiol. 2021 May;31(5):2696-2705
pubmed: 33196886
J Urol. 2022 Feb;207(2):341-349
pubmed: 34546815
World J Urol. 2016 Sep;34(9):1249-53
pubmed: 26699628
BJU Int. 2021 Jan;127(1):71-79
pubmed: 32524748
Am J Surg Pathol. 2016 Feb;40(2):244-52
pubmed: 26492179
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021 Feb;48(2):483-492
pubmed: 32734457
BJU Int. 2020 Jul;126(1):83-90
pubmed: 31260602
Prostate Int. 2021 Jun;9(2):107-112
pubmed: 34386454
Front Oncol. 2021 Mar 05;11:612157
pubmed: 33747927
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021 Nov;48(12):4042-4053
pubmed: 34386839
Eur Urol. 2013 Oct;64(4):544-52
pubmed: 23537686
Eur Urol. 2016 Nov;70(5):829-836
pubmed: 26795686
Urology. 2020 Mar;137:133-137
pubmed: 31758981
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017 Jun;44(6):941-949
pubmed: 28138747
Nucl Med Commun. 2019 Jan;40(1):86-91
pubmed: 30395048
World J Urol. 2022 Jan;40(1):51-59
pubmed: 34146124
J Urol. 2022 Mar;207(3):573-580
pubmed: 34694140
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2021 Dec 16;:
pubmed: 34914195