Advertisement

Diagnostic performance of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in the detection of prostate cancer prior to initial biopsy: comparison with cancer-predicting nomograms

  • Jingliang Zhang
  • Shuai Shao
  • Peng Wu
  • Daliang Liu
  • Bo Yang
  • Donghui Han
  • Yu Li
  • Xiaoyu Lin
  • Wei Song
  • Milin Cao
  • Jing Zhang
  • Fei KangEmail author
  • Weijun QinEmail author
  • Jing WangEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the diagnostic performance of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT for detecting suspected prostate cancer (PCa) and to compare it with that of two cancer-predicting nomograms.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of 146 consecutive patients with suspected PCa based on symptoms or elevated total prostate-specific antigen (tPSA) levels who underwent 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT and histopathologic examinations from April 2017 to April 2018 in a large tertiary care hospital in China. The 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT results (PCa or benignancy) were evaluated by two experienced nuclear medicine specialists. The risk of positive PCa was evaluated using ERSPC and PCPT nomograms. The diagnostic performances of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT and that of the two nomograms were compared via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, decision curve analysis, and logistic regression.

Results

A total of 58 patients with tPSA of 0.4–50 ng/ml were included in the final analysis; PCa diagnosis was confirmed in 37 patients and excluded in 21 patients. ROC analysis showed that the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT were 91.67, 81.82, 89.19, and 85.71%, respectively, in per-patient analyses. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT exhibited a higher AUC (0.867) than those of ERSPC-RC3 (0.855) and PCPT-RC (0.770). The net benefit of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT was greatest for patients within threshold probabilities of 15–90%. Among the 58 patients, 11 (19%) biopsies suggested by ERSPC-RC3 were unnecessary and could have been avoided if judged by the 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT results. Multivariate analysis revealed that the maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax) and prostate volume were significant predictive factors for positive PCa results.

Conclusion

In suspected PCa patients with tPSA of 0.4–50 ng/ml, 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT outperformed the nomograms in predicting cancer and reducing unnecessary biopsies. In addition, the risk of PCa was positively correlated with a higher SUVmax and lower prostate volume, which could help clinicians in making preliminary estimates of individual cancer risk, monitoring 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT false-positive results and making biopsy decisions in daily medical practice.

Keywords

68Ga-PSMA PET/CT Prostate cancer Biopsy Nomogram Multivariate analysis Decision curve analysis 

Notes

Funding

This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant nos. 81372771, 81772734, 81871379, 816771713), the Shaanxi Science and Technology Co-ordination and Innovation Project (grant no. 2016KTCQ03–09), the National Key R&D Program of China (grant no. 2016YFC0103804), the Natural Science Foundation of Shaanxi Province (grant no. 2018SF-228, 2018PT-08), and the International Cooperation Program of Xijing Hospital (grant no. XJZT15G01).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All of the procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committees and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this study type, formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(1):7–30.  https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gerstenbluth RE, Seftel AD, Hampel N, Oefelein MG, Resnick MI. The accuracy of the increased prostate specific antigen level (greater than or equal to 20 ng./ml.) in predicting prostate cancer: is biopsy always required? J Urol. 2002;168(5):1990–3.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000033330.06269.6d.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fenton JJ, Weyrich MS, Durbin S, Liu Y, Bang H, Melnikow J. Prostate-specific antigen-based screening for prostate cancer: evidence report and systematic review for the US preventive services task force. JAMA. 2018;319(18):1914–31.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.3712.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Louie KS, Seigneurin A, Cathcart P, Sasieni P. Do prostate cancer risk models improve the predictive accuracy of PSA screening? A meta-analysis. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(5):848–64.  https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdu525.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rauscher I, Duwel C, Haller B, Rischpler C, Heck MM, Gschwend JE, 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.01.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Caras RJ, Sterbis JR. Prostate cancer nomograms: a review of their use in cancer detection and treatment. Curr Urol Rep. 2014;15(3):391.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-013-0391-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ankerst DP, Hoefler J, Bock S, Goodman PJ, Vickers A, Hernandez J, et al. Prostate Cancer prevention trial risk calculator 2.0 for the prediction of low- vs high-grade prostate cancer. Urology. 2014;83(6):1362–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.02.035.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roobol MJ, Steyerberg EW, Kranse R, Wolters T, van den Bergh RC, Bangma CH, et al. A risk-based strategy improves prostate-specific antigen-driven detection of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2010;57(1):79–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2009.08.025.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Herlemann A, Wenter V, Kretschmer A, Thierfelder KM, Bartenstein P, Faber C, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA positron emission tomography/computed tomography provides accurate staging of lymph node regions prior to lymph node dissection in patients with prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2016;70(4):553–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.12.051.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Virgolini I, Decristoforo C, Haug A, Fanti S, Uprimny C. Current status of theranostics in prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45(3):471–95.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3882-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roach PJ, Francis R, Emmett L, Hsiao E, Kneebone A, Hruby G, et al. The impact of (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT on management intent in prostate Cancer: results of an Australian prospective multicenter study. J Nucl Med. 2018;59(1):82–8.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.197160.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schiavina R, Scattoni V, Castellucci P, Picchio M, Corti B, Briganti A, et al. 11C-choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for preoperative lymph-node staging in intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer: comparison with clinical staging nomograms. Eur Urol. 2008;54(2):392–401.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.04.030.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pereira-Azevedo N, Verbeek JFM, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ. Head-to-head comparison of prostate cancer risk calculators predicting biopsy outcome. Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7(1):18–26.  https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2017.12.21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gayet M, Mannaerts CK, Nieboer D, Beerlage HP, Wijkstra H, Mulders PFA, et al. Prediction of prostate cancer: external validation of the ERSPC risk calculator in a contemporary Dutch clinical cohort. Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4(2):228–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2016.07.007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Meller B, Bremmer F, Sahlmann CO, Hijazi S, Bouter C, Trojan L, et al. Alterations in androgen deprivation enhanced prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) expression in prostate cancer cells as a target for diagnostics and therapy. EJNMMI Res. 2015;5(1):66.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-015-0145-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Afshar-Oromieh A, Debus N, Uhrig M, Hope TA, Evans MJ, Holland-Letz T, et al. Impact of long-term androgen deprivation therapy on PSMA ligand PET/CT in patients with castration-sensitive prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45(12):2045–54.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-4079-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weiss BE, Wein AJ, Malkowicz SB, Guzzo TJ. Comparison of prostate volume measured by transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging: is transrectal ultrasound suitable to determine which patients should undergo active surveillance? Urol Oncol. 2013;31(8):1436–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2012.03.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Doebler RW. Transverse prostate measurement obtained using transabdominal ultrasound: possible role in transurethral needle ablation of the prostate. Urology. 2000;55(4):564–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Martin R, Juttler S, Muller M, Wester HJ. Cationic eluate pretreatment for automated synthesis of [(6)(8)Ga]CPCR4.2. Nucl Med Biol. 2014;41(1):84–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2013.09.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rauscher I, Maurer T, Fendler WP, Sommer WH, Schwaiger M, Eiber M. (68)Ga-PSMA ligand PET/CT in patients with prostate cancer: how we review and report. Cancer Imaging. 2016;16(1):14.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-016-0072-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fendler WP, Eiber M, Beheshti M, Bomanji J, Ceci F, Cho S, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT: joint EANM and SNMMI procedure guideline for prostate cancer imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(6):1014–24.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3670-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kang F, Wang Z, Li G, Wang S, Liu D, Zhang M, et al. Inter-heterogeneity and intra-heterogeneity of alphavbeta3 in non-small cell lung cancer and small cell lung cancer patients as revealed by (68)Ga-RGD2 PET imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(9):1520–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3696-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kang F, Wang S, Tian F, Zhao M, Zhang M, Wang Z, et al. Comparing the diagnostic potential of 68Ga-Alfatide II and 18F-FDG in differentiating between non-small cell lung Cancer and tuberculosis. J Nucl Med. 2016;57(5):672–7.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.167924.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ. Decision curve analysis: a discussion. Med Decis Mak. 2008;28(1):146–9.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X07312725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lete I, de la Viuda E, Perez-Campos E, Martinez MA, Sanchez-de la Rosa R, Novalbos J, et al. Effect on quality of life of switching to combined oral contraception based on natural estrogen: an observational, multicentre, prospective phase IV study (ZOCAL study). Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2016;21(4):276–84.  https://doi.org/10.3109/13625187.2016.1174206.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fendler WP, Schmidt DF, Wenter V, Thierfelder KM, Zach C, Stief C, et al. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT detects the location and extent of primary prostate Cancer. J Nucl Med. 2016;57(11):1720–5.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.172627.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jang JY, Kim YS. Is prostate biopsy essential to diagnose prostate cancer in the older patient with extremely high prostate-specific antigen? Korean J Urol. 2012;53(2):82–6.  https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2012.53.2.82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Harvey P, Basuita A, Endersby D, Curtis B, Iacovidou A, Walker M. A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of prostate specific antigen. BMC Urol. 2009;9:14.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2490-9-14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Uprimny C, Kroiss AS, Decristoforo C, Fritz J, von Guggenberg E, Kendler D, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT in primary staging of prostate cancer: PSA and Gleason score predict the intensity of tracer accumulation in the primary tumour. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(6):941–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3631-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Moschini M, Gandaglia G, Suardi N, Fossati N, Cucchiara V, Damiano R, et al. Importance of prostate volume in the stratification of patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Int J Urol. 2015;22(6):555–61.  https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.12748.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Roobol MJ, van Vugt HA, Loeb S, Zhu X, Bul M, Bangma CH, et al. Prediction of prostate cancer risk: the role of prostate volume and digital rectal examination in the ERSPC risk calculators. Eur Urol. 2012;61(3):577–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.11.012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ben Jemaa A, Bouraoui Y, Sallami S, Banasr A, Nouira Y, Horchani A, et al. Cellular distribution and heterogeneity of Psa and Psma expression in normal, hyperplasia and human prostate cancer. Tunis Med. 2013;91(7):458–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bakht MK, Derecichei I, Li Y, Ferraiuolo RM, Dunning MJ, Oh SW, et al. Neuroendocrine differentiation of prostate cancer leads to PSMA suppression. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2018;26(2):131–46.  https://doi.org/10.1530/ERC-18-0226.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Parida GK, Tripathy S, Datta Gupta S, Singhal A, Kumar R, Bal C, et al. Adenocarcinoma prostate with neuroendocrine differentiation: potential utility of 18F-FDG PET/CT and 68Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT over 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med. 2018;43(4):248–9.  https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0000000000002013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Budaus L, Leyh-Bannurah SR, Salomon G, Michl U, Heinzer H, Huland H, et al. Initial experience of (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT imaging in high-risk prostate cancer patients prior to radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):393–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bronsert P, Reichel K, Ruf J. Loss of PSMA expression in non-neuroendocrine dedifferentiated acinar prostate cancer. Clin Nucl Med. 2018;43(7):526–8.  https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0000000000002100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Maurer T, Gschwend JE, Rauscher I, Souvatzoglou M, Haller B, Weirich G, et al. Diagnostic efficacy of (68)gallium-PSMA positron emission tomography compared to conventional imaging for lymph node staging of 130 consecutive patients with intermediate to high risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2016;195(5):1436–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.025.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Han S, Woo S, Kim YJ, Suh CH. Impact of (68)Ga-PSMA PET on the management of patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2018;74(2):179–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.03.030.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Afshar-Oromieh A, Hetzheim H, Kratochwil C, Benesova M, Eder M, Neels OC, et al. The novel theranostic PSMA ligand PSMA-617 in the diagnosis of prostate cancer by PET/CT: biodistribution in humans, radiation dosimetry, and first evaluation of tumor lesions. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(11):1697–705.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.161299.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Benesova M, Schafer M, Bauder-Wust U, Afshar-Oromieh A, Kratochwil C, Mier W, et al. Preclinical evaluation of a tailor-made DOTA-conjugated PSMA inhibitor with optimized linker moiety for imaging and endoradiotherapy of prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(6):914–20.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.114.147413.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Liu C, Liu T, Zhang N, Liu Y, Li N, Du P, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA-617 PET/CT: a promising new technique for predicting risk stratification and metastatic risk of prostate cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45(11):1852–61.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-4037-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Finne P, Auvinen A, Aro J, Juusela H, Maattanen L, Rannikko S, et al. Estimation of prostate cancer risk on the basis of total and free prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume and digital rectal examination. Eur Urol. 2002;41(6):619–26; discussion 26-7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0302-2838(02)00179-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Eiber M, Nekolla SG, Maurer T, Weirich G, Wester HJ, Schwaiger M. (68)Ga-PSMA PET/MR with multimodality image analysis for primary prostate cancer. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40(6):1769–71.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0301-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Westenfelder KM, Lentes B, Rackerseder J, Navab N, Gschwend JE, Eiber M, et al. Gallium-68 HBED-CC-PSMA positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging for prostate fusion biopsy. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2018;16(4):245–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2018.05.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Thalgott M, Duwel C, Rauscher I, Heck MM, Haller B, Gafita A, et al. One-stop shop whole-body (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI compared to clinical nomograms for preoperative T- and N-staging of high-risk prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2018;59(12):1850–6.  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.207696.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    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(5):829–36.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.12.053.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jingliang Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Shuai Shao
    • 3
  • Peng Wu
    • 1
  • Daliang Liu
    • 4
  • Bo Yang
    • 1
  • Donghui Han
    • 1
  • Yu Li
    • 1
  • Xiaoyu Lin
    • 1
  • Wei Song
    • 1
  • Milin Cao
    • 1
  • Jing Zhang
    • 5
  • Fei Kang
    • 4
    Email author
  • Weijun Qin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jing Wang
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Urology, Xijing HospitalFourth Military Medical UniversityXi’anChina
  2. 2.Department of Health Services, Health Service Training BaseFourth Military Medical UniversityXi’anChina
  3. 3.Department of Dermatology, Xijing HospitalFourth Military Medical UniversityXi’anChina
  4. 4.Department of Nuclear Medicine, Xijing HospitalFourth Military Medical UniversityXi’anChina
  5. 5.Department of Pathology, Xijing HospitalFourth Military Medical UniversityXi’anChina

Personalised recommendations