68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT in comparison with 18F-fluoride-PET/CT and whole-body MRI for the detection of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer: a prospective diagnostic accuracy study
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of 68gallium prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-based positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in comparison with 18F-fluoride-based PET/CT (NaF-PET/CT) and whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) for the detection of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer.
Sixty patients with prostate cancer were included in the period May 2016 to June 2017. The participants underwent three scans (index tests) within 30 days: a NaF-PET/CT, a WB-MRI and a PSMA-PET/CT. Experienced specialists assessed the scans. In the absence of a histological reference standard, the final diagnosis was determined as a panel diagnosis. Measures of the diagnostic performances of the index tests were calculated from patient-based dichotomous outcomes (0 or ≥ 1 bone metastasis) and pairwise compared (McNemar test). For each index test, the agreement with the final diagnosis with regard to the number of bone metastases detected (0, 1–5, > 5) and the inter-reader agreement was calculated (kappa coefficients).
Fifty-five patients constituted the final study population; 20 patients (36%) were classified as having bone metastatic disease as their final diagnosis. The patient-based diagnostic performances were (sensitivity, specificity, overall accuracy) PSMA-PET/CT (100%, 100%, 100%), NaF-PET/CT (95%, 97%, 96%) and WB-MRI (80%, 83%, 82%). The overall accuracy of PSMA-PET/CT was significantly more favourable compared to WB-MRI (p = 0.004), but not to NaF-PET/CT (p = 0.48). PSMA-PET/CT classified the number of bone metastases reliably compared to the final diagnosis (kappa coefficient 0.97) and with an “almost perfect” inter-reader agreement (kappa coefficient 0.93).
The overall accuracy of PSMA-PET/CT was significantly more advantageous compared to WB-MRI, but not to NaF-PET/CT.
• PSMA-PET/CT assessed the presence of bone metastases correctly in all 55 patients
• PSMA-PET/CT was more advantageous compared to WB-MRI
• No difference was found between PSMA-PET/CT and NaF-PET/CT
KeywordsPositron emission tomography computed tomography Magnetic resonance imaging Prostatic neoplasms Metastasis Bone and bones
Apparent diffusion coefficient
Androgen deprivation therapy
Best valuable comparator
Estimated glomerular filtration rate
Magnetic resonance imaging
Positron emission tomography
Prostate-specific membrane antigen
Single-photon emission computed tomography
Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies
Short-T1 inversion recovery
95% confidence interval
This study has received funding by the University of Copenhagen and from Poul Lundbeck and Wife’s Foundation for the Promotion of Radiology in Denmark.
Compliance with ethical standards
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Eva Dyrberg.
Conflict of interest
The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.
Statistics and biometry
Tobias W. Klausen and Stig S. Mortensen kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript.
Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.
Institutional review board approval was obtained.
• diagnostic study
• performed at one institution
- 1.Herrera FG, Tawadros T, Berthold DR (2015) Bone cancer. Primary bone cancers and metastases, 2nd edn. Elsevier, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
- 3.Moulopoulos LA, Koutoulidis V (2015) Bone marrow MRI, 1st edn. Springer-Verlag Italia, MilanGoogle Scholar
- 6.Høilund-Carlsen PF, Hess S, Alavi A (2017) Bone marrow and NOT bone metastases is what 21st century diagnostic imaging must focus upon when looking for skeletal metastases. J Nucl Med. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.201848
- 14.Silver DA, Pellicer I, Fair WR, Heston WD, Cordon-Cardo C (1997) Prostate-specific membrane antigen expression in normal and malignant human tissues. Clin Cancer Res 3:81–85Google Scholar
- 16.Zacho HD, Nielsen JB, Haberkorn U, Stenholt L, Petersen LJ (2017) 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT for the detection of bone metastases in prostate cancer: a systematic review of the published literature. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1111/cpf.12480
- 18.Pasoglou V, Michoux N, Larbi A, Van Nieuwenhove S, Lecouvet F (2018) Whole body MRI and oncology: recent major advances. Br J Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20170664%0A
- 19.Tombal B, Lecouvet F (2012) Modern detection of prostate cancer’s bone metastasis: is the bone scan era over? Adv Urol. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/893193
- 22.Lecouvet FE, El Mouedden J, Collette L et al (2012) Can whole-body magnetic resonance imaging with diffusion-weighted imaging replace Tc 99m bone scanning and computed tomography for single-step detection of metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer? Eur Urol 62:68–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Morigi JJ, Stricker P, Van Leeuwen P et al (2015) Prospective comparison of the detection rate of 18F-fluoromethylcholine and 68Ga-PSMA-HBED PET/CT in men with prostate cancer with rising PSA post curative treatment, being considered for targeted therapy. J Nucl Med 56:1185–1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Fendler WP, Eiber M, Beheshti M et al (2017) 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT: joint EANM and SNMMI procedure guideline for prostate cancer imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44:1014–1024Google Scholar
- 40.Padhani AR, Lecouvet FE, Tunariu N et al (2017) METastasis reporting and data system for prostate cancer: practical guidelines for acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging-based evaluations of multiorgan involvement in advanced prostate cancer. Eur Urol 71:81–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 42.McCarthy M, Siew T, Campbell A et al (2011) 18F-Fluoromethylcholine (FCH) PET imaging in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer: prospective comparison with standard imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38:14–22Google Scholar
- 43.Garcia JR, Moreno C, Valls E et al (2015) Diagnostic performance of bone scintigraphy and 11C-choline PET/CT in the detection of bone metastases in patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol 34:155–161Google Scholar
- 44.Fonager RF, Zacho HD, Langkilde NC et al (2017) Diagnostic test accuracy study of 18F-sodium fluoride PET/CT, 99mTc-labelled diphosphonate SPECT/CT, and planar bone scintigraphy for diagnosis of bone metastases in newly diagnosed, high-risk prostate cancer. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 7:218–227Google Scholar
- 45.Jambor I, Kuisma A, Ramadan S et al (2016) Prospective evaluation of planar bone scintigraphy, SPECT, SPECT/CT, 18F-NaF PET/CT and whole body 1.5T MRI, including DWI, for the detection of bone metastases in high risk breast and prostate cancer patients: SKELETA clinical trial. Acta Oncol 55:59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar