Advertisement

68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in recurrent prostate cancer: efficacy in different clinical stages of PSA failure after radical therapy

  • Francesco Ceci
  • Paolo Castellucci
  • Tiziano Graziani
  • Andrea Farolfi
  • Cristina Fonti
  • Filippo Lodi
  • Stefano Fanti
Original Article

Abstract

Objectives

The primary objective was the evaluation of Gallium 68 (68Ga)-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-11 positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) detection rate, for identifying the site of prostate cancer (PCa) relapse (local vs systemic), stratifying the population according to different clinical stages of biochemical recurrence (BCR). Secondary aims were: 1) to evaluate the association of clinical/pathologic features and 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT detection rate, 2) to compare 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT with other imaging procedures, and 3) to evaluate the positive predictive value (PPV) in a per-patient analysis.

Material and methods

This population was enrolled through a prospective, open label, single-center trial performed at the Nuclear Medicine of the University Hospital of Bologna (Eudract: 2015-004589-27 OsSC). The inclusion criteria were: (1) proven PCa, (2) surgery or radiotherapy as definitive therapy, (3) proven BCR, (4) prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 0.2–2 ng/ml, (5) age ≥ 35 years, and 6() willing to sign an informed consent. Three-hundred and thirty-two (332) patients were enrolled between March 2016 and June 2017; mean/median PSA was 0.84/0.61 ng/ml, 97.9% (325/332) of patients received radical prostatectomy and 2.1% (7/332) radiotherapy. Different patterns of BCR were identified by referent physicians as follows: (a) persisting detectable PSA after radical prostatectomy in 13.5% (45/332) of patients (subgroup 1), (b) first-time PSA failure after radical therapy in 44.9% (149/332) (subgroup 2), and (c) PSA increase after salvage or hormonal therapy in 41.6% (138/332) (subgroup 3).

Results

Primary objective: 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT detection rate was 53.6% (CI 95% 48.1%–59.1%). In a patient-based analysis, disease confined to pelvis (prostate bed and/or lymph-nodes) was detected in 24.7% of cases (82/332). The presence of at least one distant lesion was observed in 28.9% of cases (96/332). The detection rate in different subgroups was: subgroup 1 = 64.5%, subgroup 2 = 45.6%, and subgroup-3  = 58.7%. Secondary objectives: 1) PSA (p = 0.041) and PSAdt (p = 0.001) showed association with 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT detection rate, and 2) correlative imaging was available in 73.2% of patients (243/332). When 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT was positive, correlative imaging resulted negative in 83% of cases (108/130). 3) The calculated PPV was 96.2%.

Conclusion

Our data confirmed the efficacy of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT for detecting local vs systemic disease in PCa patients presenting PSA failure after radical therapy. Furthermore, 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT detection rate is different depending on the clinical stage of BCR, and this information should be taken into consideration by referring physicians.

Keywords

PSMA PET/CT Biochemical recurrence Prostate cancer PSMA prostate PSMA prospective First biochemical recurrence 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Francesco Ceci is supported by a Postdoctoral Fellowship Award from the Fondazione Umberto Veronesi (Post-doctoral Travel-Grant 2018) for his research at University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), about theranostic applications of PSMA inhibitors in prostate cancer.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the principles of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest

Authors declare no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

259_2018_4189_MOESM1_ESM.docx (17 kb)
Supplemental data 1 (DOCX 16 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Cornford P, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part II: treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2017;71:630–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Paller CJ, Antonarakis ES. Management of biochemically recurrent prostate cancer after local therapy: evolving standards of care and new directions. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol. 2013;11:14–23.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beresford MJ, Gillatt D, Benson RJ, Ajithkumar T. A systematic review of the role of imaging before salvage radiotherapy for post-prostatectomy biochemical recurrence. Clin Oncol. 2010;22:46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Briganti A, Karnes RJ, Joniau S, et al. Prediction of outcome following early salvage radiotherapy among patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2014;66:479–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kattan MW, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. Postoperative nomogram for disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1499–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Kattan MW, et al. Predicting the outcome of salvage radiation therapy for recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:2035–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ost P, Bossi A, Decaestecker K, et al. Metastasis-directed therapy of regional and distant recurrences after curative treatment of prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2015;67:852–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Castellucci P, Ceci F, Graziani T, et al. Early biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy: which prostate cancer patients may benefit from a restaging 11C-choline PET/CT scan before salvage radiation therapy? J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1424–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ceci F, Herrmann K, Castellucci P, et al. Impact of 11C-choline PET/CT on clinical decision making in recurrent prostate cancer: results from a retrospective two-centre trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:2222–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Foss CA, Mease RC, Cho SY, Kim HJ, Pomper MG. GCPII imaging and cancer. Curr Med Chem. 2012;19:1346–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Trover JK, Beckett ML, Wright GL. Detection and characterization of the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) in tissue extracts and body fluids. Int J Cancer. 1995;62:552–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eiber M, Maurer T, Souvatzoglou M, et al. Evaluation of hybrid 68Ga-PSMA ligand PET/CT in 248 patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:668–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ceci F, Uprimny C, Nilica B, et al. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT for restaging recurrent prostate cancer: which factors are associated with PET/CT detection rate? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:1284–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Calais J, Czernin J, Cao M, et al. 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT mapping of prostate cancer biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in 270 patients with a PSA level of less than 1.0 ng/mL: impact on salvage radiotherapy planning. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:230–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fendler WP, Eiber M, Beheshti M, et al. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT: joint EANM and SNMMI procedure guideline for prostate cancer imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:1014–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eder M, Neels O, Müller M, et al. Novel preclinical and radiopharmaceutical aspects of [(68)Ga]Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC: a new PET tracer for imaging of prostate cancer. Pharmaceuticals. 2014;7:779–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Farolfi A, Ceci F, Castellucci P, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy and PSA <0.5 ng/ml. Efficacy and impact on treatment strategy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Khan MA, Carter HB, Epstein JI, et al. Can prostate specific antigen derivatives and pathological parameters predict significant change in expectant management criteria for prostate cancer? J Urol. 2003;170:2274–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rauscher I, Düwel C, Haller B, et al. Efficacy, predictive factors, and prediction nomograms for 68Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen–ligand positron-emission tomography/computed tomography in early biochemical recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2018;73:656–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roach PJ, Francis R, Emmett L, et al. The impact of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT on management intent in prostate cancer: results of an Australian prospective multicenter study. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:82–8.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.197160.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Afshar-Oromieh A, Avtzi E, Giesel FL, et al. The diagnostic value of PET/CT imaging with the 68Ga-labelled PSMA ligand HBED-CC in the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:197–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Calais J, Fendler WP, Herrmann K, Eiber M, Ceci F. Comparison of 68Ga-PSMA-11 and 18F-Fluciclovine PET/CT in a case series of 10 patients with prostate cancer recurrence. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:789–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Verburg FA, Pfister D, Heidenreich A, et al. Extent of disease in recurrent prostate cancer determined by [68Ga]PSMA-HBED-CC PET/CT in relation to PSA levels, PSA doubling time and Gleason score. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:397–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Afshar-Oromieh A, Holland-Letz T, Giesel FL, et al. Diagnostic performance of 68Ga-PSMA-11 (HBED-CC) PET/CT in patients with recurrent prostate cancer: evaluation in 1007 patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:1258–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Perera M, Papa N, Christidis D, et al. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictors of positive 68Ga–prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in advanced prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2016;70:926–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Albisinni S, Artigas C, Aoun F, et al. Clinical impact of (68) Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in patients with prostate cancer with rising prostate-specific antigen after treatment with curative intent: preliminary analysis of a multidisciplinary approach. BJU Int. 2017;120(2):197–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Morigi JJ, Stricker PD, van Leeuwen PJ, et al. Prospective comparison of 18F-Fluoromethylcholine versus 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in prostate cancer patients who have rising PSA after curative treatment and are being considered for targeted therapy. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(8):1185–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rauscher I, Düwel C, Haller B, et al. Efficacy, predictive factors, and prediction nomograms for (68)Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen-ligand positron-emission tomography/computed tomography in early biochemical recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2018;73(5):656–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Metropolitan Nuclear Medicine of BolognaUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.Ahmanson Translational Imaging Division, UCLA Nuclear Medicine, Department of Molecular and Medical PharmacologyUniversity of California Los Angeles (UCLA)Los AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Metropolitan Nuclear Medicine of BolognaPoliclinico S.Orsola-Malpighi, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations