Comparison of PSMA-ligand PET/CT and multiparametric MRI for the detection of recurrent prostate cancer in the pelvis
So far, there have been very few studies which provide a direct comparison between MRI and PSMA-ligand PET/CT for the detection of recurrent prostate cancer (rPC). This present study therefore aims to provide further clinical data in order to resolve this urgent clinical question, and thereby strengthen clinical recommendations.
A retrospective analysis was performed for patients who were scanned at our institution with whole-body PSMA-PET/CT (tracer: 68Ga-PSMA-11) between January 2017 and September 2018 in order to detect rPC. Amongst them, 43 underwent an additional pelvic MRI within 2 months. Both modalities were compared as follows: a consensus read of the PET data was performed by two nuclear physicians. All lesions were recorded with respect to their type and localization. The same process was conducted by two radiologists for pelvic MRI. Thereafter, both modalities were directly compared for every patient and lesion.
Overall, 30/43 patients (69.8%) presented with a pathologic MRI and 38/43 (88.4%) with a pathologic PSMA-PET/CT of the pelvis. MRI detected 53 pelvic rPC lesions (13 of them classified as “uncertain”) and PSMA-PET/CT detected 75 pelvic lesions (three classified as “uncertain”). The superiority of PSMA-PET/CT was statistically significant only if uncertain lesions were classified as false-positive.
PSMA-PET/CT detected more pelvic lesions characteristic for rPC when compared to MRI. In order to detect rPC, a potential future scenario could be conducting first a PSMA-PET/CT. Combining the advantages of both modalities in hybrid PET/MRI scanners would be an ideal future scenario.
KeywordsProstate cancer PET/CT PSMA Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen 68Ga-PSMA-11 MRI
Compliance with ethical standards
This evaluation was approved by the ethics committee of the University of Bern (KEK-Nr. 2018–00299). All patients published in this manuscript signed a written informed consent form for the purpose of anonymized evaluation and publication of their data.
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 5.Afshar-Oromieh A, Avtzi E, Giesel FL, Holland-Letz T, Linhart HG, Eder M, et al. The diagnostic value of PET/CT imaging with the (68)Ga-labelled PSMA ligand HBED-CC in the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:197–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2949-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Afshar-Oromieh A, Holland-Letz T, Giesel FL, Kratochwil C, Mier W, Haufe S, et al. Diagnostic performance of (68)Ga-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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3711-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Afshar-Oromieh A, Malcher A, Eder M, Eisenhut M, Linhart HG, Hadaschik BA, et al. PET imaging with a [68Ga]gallium-labelled PSMA ligand for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: biodistribution in humans and first evaluation of tumour lesions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:486–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-012-2298-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Afshar-Oromieh A, Zechmann CM, Malcher A, Eder M, Eisenhut M, Linhart HG, et al. Comparison of PET imaging with a (68)Ga-labelled PSMA ligand and (18)F-choline-based PET/CT for the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:11–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-013-2525-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.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;73:656–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.01.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.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;70:553–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.12.051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Pfister D, Porres D, Heidenreich A, Heidegger I, Knuechel R, Steib F, et al. Detection of recurrent prostate cancer lesions before salvage lymphadenectomy is more accurate with (68)Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC than with (18)F-Fluoroethylcholine PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:1410–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3366-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Hijazi S, Meller B, Leitsmann C, Strauss A, Meller J, Ritter CO, et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection for nodal oligometastatic prostate cancer detected by 68Ga-PSMA-positron emission tomography/computerized tomography. Prostate. 2015;75:1934–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.23091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Bashir U, Tree A, Mayer E, Levine D, Parker C, Dearnaley D, et al. Impact of Ga-68-PSMA PET/CT on management in prostate cancer patients with very early biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46(4):901–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-4249-z.
- 22.Afshar-Oromieh A, Haberkorn U, Schlemmer HP, Fenchel M, Eder M, Eisenhut M, et al. Comparison of PET/CT and PET/MRI hybrid systems using a 68Ga-labelled PSMA ligand for the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer: initial experience. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:887–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-013-2660-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Sawicki LM, Kirchner J, Buddensieck C, Antke C, Ullrich T, Schimmoller L, et al. Prospective comparison of whole-body MRI and (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT for the detection of biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46(7):1542–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04308-5.
- 25.Zacho HD, Nielsen JB, Afshar-Oromieh A, Haberkorn U, deSouza N, De Paepe K, et al. Prospective comparison of (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT, (18)F-sodium fluoride PET/CT and diffusion weighted-MRI at for the detection of bone metastases in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:1884–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-4058-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Rauscher I, Maurer T, Beer AJ, Graner FP, Haller B, Weirich G, et al. Value of 68Ga-PSMA HBED-CC PET for the assessment of lymph node metastases in prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence: comparison with histopathology after salvage lymphadenectomy. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:1713–9. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.173492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Emmett L, Metser U, Bauman G, Hicks RJ, Weickhardt A, Davis ID, et al. A prospective, multi-site, international comparison of F-18 fluoro-methyl-choline, multi-parametric magnetic resonance and Ga-68 HBED-CC (PSMA-11) in men with high-risk features and biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy: clinical performance and patient outcomes. J Nucl Med. 2018;60(6):794–800. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.220103.
- 28.Moghanaki D, Turkbey B, Vapiwala N, Ehdaie B, Frank SJ, McLaughlin PW, et al. Advances in prostate cancer magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography-computed tomography for staging and radiotherapy treatment planning. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2017;27:21–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semradonc.2016.08.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar