Heterogeneity of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) and PSMA-ligand uptake detection combining autoradiography and postoperative pathology in primary prostate cancer.

99mTc-PSMA-I&S ARG Heterogeneity Immunohistochemistry Primary prostate cancer

Journal

EJNMMI research
ISSN: 2191-219X
Titre abrégé: EJNMMI Res
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101560946

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
16 Nov 2023
Historique:
received: 14 07 2023
accepted: 16 10 2023
medline: 17 11 2023
pubmed: 17 11 2023
entrez: 16 11 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Targeting prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) has been highly successful for imaging and treatment of prostate cancer. However, heterogeneity in immunohistochemistry indicates limitations in the effect of imaging and radionuclide therapy of multifocal disease. Seventeen patients who underwent RGS between 11/2018 and 01/2020 with a total of 4660 grids were included in the preliminary analysis. Marked intratumor and intra-patient heterogeneity of PSMA expression was detected, and PSMA negative foci were observed in all samples (100%). Heterogeneous intra-patient PSMA-ligand uptake was observed, and no significant correlation was present between the degree of heterogeneity of PSMA expression and PSMA-ligand uptake. Higher PSMA-ligand uptake was observed in GS ≥ 8 than GS < 8 (p < 0.001). The appearance of Gleason Pattern (GP) 4 was strongly associated with higher uptake (coefficient: 0.43, p < 0.001), while GP 5 also affected the uptake (coefficient: 0.07, p < 0.001). PSMA expression and PSMA-ligand uptake show marked heterogeneity. Prostate carcinoma with GP 4 showed significantly higher uptake compared with non-neoplastic prostate tissue. Our analyses extend the scope of applications of radiolabeled PSMA-ligands to ARG for identifying high-grade disease and using its signal as a noninvasive biomarker in prostate cancer.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Targeting prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) has been highly successful for imaging and treatment of prostate cancer. However, heterogeneity in immunohistochemistry indicates limitations in the effect of imaging and radionuclide therapy of multifocal disease.
RESULTS RESULTS
Seventeen patients who underwent RGS between 11/2018 and 01/2020 with a total of 4660 grids were included in the preliminary analysis. Marked intratumor and intra-patient heterogeneity of PSMA expression was detected, and PSMA negative foci were observed in all samples (100%). Heterogeneous intra-patient PSMA-ligand uptake was observed, and no significant correlation was present between the degree of heterogeneity of PSMA expression and PSMA-ligand uptake. Higher PSMA-ligand uptake was observed in GS ≥ 8 than GS < 8 (p < 0.001). The appearance of Gleason Pattern (GP) 4 was strongly associated with higher uptake (coefficient: 0.43, p < 0.001), while GP 5 also affected the uptake (coefficient: 0.07, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
PSMA expression and PSMA-ligand uptake show marked heterogeneity. Prostate carcinoma with GP 4 showed significantly higher uptake compared with non-neoplastic prostate tissue. Our analyses extend the scope of applications of radiolabeled PSMA-ligands to ARG for identifying high-grade disease and using its signal as a noninvasive biomarker in prostate cancer.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37971546
doi: 10.1186/s13550-023-01044-8
pii: 10.1186/s13550-023-01044-8
pmc: PMC10654338
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

99

Subventions

Organisme : DFG Sonderforschungsbereich 824
ID : Project B11
Organisme : DFG Sonderforschungsbereich 824
ID : Project Z2

Informations de copyright

© 2023. The Author(s).

Références

Eur Urol. 2019 Oct;76(4):517-523
pubmed: 30987843
Clin Nucl Med. 2019 Apr;44(4):e291-e293
pubmed: 30688746
Cancer Res. 2000 Sep 15;60(18):5237-43
pubmed: 11016653
J Nucl Med. 2017 Oct;58(10):1545-1552
pubmed: 28687599
J Nucl Med. 2018 Feb;59(2):238-243
pubmed: 28775203
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022 Sep;49(11):3938-3949
pubmed: 35556160
Am J Surg Pathol. 2016 Feb;40(2):244-52
pubmed: 26492179
Eur Urol. 2015 Sep;68(3):530-4
pubmed: 25957851
Pathol Oncol Res. 2009 Jun;15(2):167-72
pubmed: 18802790
Eur Urol. 2019 Jun;75(6):920-926
pubmed: 30473431
Urology. 1998 Oct;52(4):637-40
pubmed: 9763084
Front Oncol. 2018 Dec 20;8:623
pubmed: 30619757
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Apr 26;102(17):5981-6
pubmed: 15837926
Theranostics. 2016 Apr 12;6(6):849-61
pubmed: 27162555
Nat Rev Cancer. 2017 Oct;17(10):605-619
pubmed: 28912577
Int J Cancer. 2015 Mar 1;136(5):E359-86
pubmed: 25220842
Cancer Res. 1997 Jun 15;57(12):2321-4
pubmed: 9192800
Hum Pathol. 2007 May;38(5):696-701
pubmed: 17320151
J Urol. 2016 May;195(5):1436-1443
pubmed: 26682756
Oncotarget. 2016 Mar 15;7(11):12477-88
pubmed: 26871285
Histol Histopathol. 2004 Jul;19(3):715-8
pubmed: 15168332
N Engl J Med. 2021 Sep 16;385(12):1091-1103
pubmed: 34161051
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015 Feb;42(2):197-209
pubmed: 25411132
Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Jun 15;26(12):2946-2955
pubmed: 31932492
Eur Urol. 2018 May;73(5):656-661
pubmed: 29358059
Eur Urol. 2019 Oct;76(4):469-478
pubmed: 31345636
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011 Sep;38(9):1659-68
pubmed: 21626438
Cancer Res. 1994 Apr 1;54(7):1807-11
pubmed: 7511053
Sci Rep. 2018 Mar 9;8(1):4254
pubmed: 29523813
Nat Rev Urol. 2016 Apr;13(4):226-35
pubmed: 26902337
EMBO J. 2006 Mar 22;25(6):1375-84
pubmed: 16467855
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014 Jan;41(1):11-20
pubmed: 24072344
J Nucl Med. 2017 Feb;58(2):235-242
pubmed: 27635024
J Nucl Med. 2016 Aug;57(8):1170-6
pubmed: 26985056
Clin Cancer Res. 2003 Dec 15;9(17):6357-62
pubmed: 14695135
Eur J Cancer. 2013 Apr;49(6):1374-403
pubmed: 23485231
Clin Cancer Res. 1997 Jan;3(1):81-5
pubmed: 9815541
Croat Med J. 2005 Jun;46(3):423-8
pubmed: 15861522
Theranostics. 2020 May 15;10(14):6082-6094
pubmed: 32483440
J Nucl Med. 2015 May;56(5):668-74
pubmed: 25791990
Front Oncol. 2018 Dec 21;8:653
pubmed: 30622933
J Nucl Med. 2016 Apr;57(4):563-7
pubmed: 26769858
Eur Urol. 2022 Oct;82(4):411-418
pubmed: 35879127
Eur Urol. 2019 Apr;75(4):659-666
pubmed: 29625755
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013 Apr;40(4):486-95
pubmed: 23179945
Prostate. 2011 Feb 15;71(3):281-8
pubmed: 20809553

Auteurs

Hui Wang (H)

Department of Nuclear Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Guo Xue Xiang 37, Chengdu, 610040, Sichuan, China. wanghui_5349@outlook.com.
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. wanghui_5349@outlook.com.

Marianne Remke (M)

Institute of Pathology, School of Medicine, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.

Thomas Horn (T)

Department of Urology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.

Kristina Schwamborn (K)

Institute of Pathology, School of Medicine, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.

Yiyao Chen (Y)

Departments of Mathematics and Life Sciences, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.

Katja Steiger (K)

Institute of Pathology, School of Medicine, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, Germany.

Wilko Weichert (W)

Institute of Pathology, School of Medicine, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, Germany.

Hans-Jürgen Wester (HJ)

Pharmaceutical Radiochemistry, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.

Margret Schottelius (M)

Translational Radiopharmaceutical Sciences, Departments of Nuclear Medicine and of Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Agora, Pole de Recherche Sur Le Cancer, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Wolfgang A Weber (WA)

Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.

Matthias Eiber (M)

Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. matthias.eiber@tum.de.

Classifications MeSH